MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4231697315 · doi:10.14740/jmc3084w

Trans-Catheter Aortic Valve Replacement Thrombus in Patient on Xarelto and Aspirin Resolved Three Months After Warfarin

2018· article· en· W4231697315 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Obiora Maludum, Firas Ajam, Anas Alrafaee, Hetavi Mahida, Nene Ugoeke, Dawn Calderon, Renato Apolito

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombusWarfarinAtrial fibrillationAortic valve replacementAspirinCardiologySurgeryStroke (engine)Aortic valvePerioperativeInternal medicineStenosisValve replacement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trans-catheter aortic valve replacement has been gaining ground since it was performed in 2002. Indications for the procedure are also expanding and are expected to include patients with intermediate risk for perioperative mortality. There are no guidelines on the use of anticoagulation in patients who have undergone trans-catheter aortic valve replacement. We present an interesting case of an 82-year-old gentleman with past medical history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with CHA2DS2-VASc (a clinical prediction tool for estimating risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation) score of 3, coronary artery disease, pernicious anemia, and severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who had trans-catheter aortic valve replacement. He was on Xarelto and aspirin, and still developed thrombus on the aortic valve many months after the procedure. The thrombus resolved after few months of anti-coagulation with Coumadin. This case shows that thrombus on the valve can still occur post-procedure even in patients who are on direct oral anticoagulant and aspirin. This calls into question if there is need to anti-coagulate all patients after TAVR procedure with Coumadin for at least 3 - 6 months. As our knowledge of the post-TAVR complications and outcomes continues to grow, we may be able to answer this question in the future, especially with large scale research studies. J Med Cases. 2018;9(8):278-280 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc3084w

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Cases→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→