MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224436906 · doi:10.14740/gr1493

The Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism and Practice of Deep Venous Thrombosis Prophylaxis Among Hospitalized Cirrhotic Patients

2022· article· en· W4224436906 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mira Alsheikh, Khalil Kamar, Malek Kreidieh, Rola Sasso, Samragnyi Madala, Rubal Sharma, Hassan Al Moussawi, Liliane Deeb

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCirrhosisIncidence (geometry)Venous thrombosisInternal medicineThrombosisCohortGastroenterologyRetrospective cohort studySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with liver cirrhosis have altered hepatic synthetic functions which theoretically result in reduced levels of pro-and anti-coagulant factors as well as thrombocytopenia. Initially, cirrhotic patients were thought to be at an increased risk of bleeding and a reduced risk of thrombosis. Several studies have recently reported an increased occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cirrhotic patients. In this study, we aimed to assess the current practice of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, the incidence and predictors of VTE, and the associated bleeding sequelae in patients with liver cirrhosis. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed. We included all adult patients with a diagnosis of liver cirrhosis from January 2010 to June 2019 admitted to the hospital. Our cohort patients were divided into two groups, cirrhotic patients with pharmacological VTE prophylaxis and those with mechanical or no VTE prophylaxis. Results: We included 601 cirrhotic patients in our study. The incidence of VTE occurring within the first 6 months of their admission was 1.5%. Seven patients (1.49%) developed VTE with the majority being DVTs while not on pharmacologic prophylaxis, and two patients developed VTE despite being on pharmacologic prophylaxis; however, there was no statistical difference. Alcohol use was the most common underlying cause of liver cirrhosis (40.4%), followed by chronic hepatitis C (21.1%), and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (11.3%). Out of the 601 patients included, 69 patients received neither pharmacologic nor mechanical VTE prophylactic agent (11.48%), while the remaining majority received either pharmacological or mechanical prophylaxis (88.52%). Conclusions: Our study did not show a statistically significant association between the use of pharmacological VTE prophylactic agents and a reduction in the risk of VTE in cirrhotic patients. The rates of usage of DVT prophylactic agents among our Northwell hospitals during the study period appeared to be no longer suboptimal when compared to prior studies. Low albumin appears to be a predictor factor to develop VTE. There was a statistically significant increase in bleeding risk and transfusion requirement in cirrhotic patients receiving no pharmacological VTE prophylactic agents. Further prospective trials are needed to shed more light on this subject and identify the group of cirrhotic patients who could safely benefit from pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology ResearchSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207