Postthrombotic syndrome and quality of life after deep vein thrombosis in patients treated with edoxaban versus warfarin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a long-term complication after deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and can affect quality of life (QoL). Pathogenesis is not fully understood but inadequate anticoagulant therapy with vitamin K antagonists is a known risk factor for the development of PTS. Objectives: To compare the prevalence of PTS after acute DVT and the long-term QoL following DVT between patients treated with edoxaban or warfarin. Methods: We performed a long-term follow-up study in a subset of patients with DVT who participated in the Hokusai-VTE trial between 2010 and 2012 (NCT00986154). Primary outcome was the prevalence of PTS, defined by the Villalta score. The secondary outcome was QoL, assessed by validated disease-specific (VEINES-QOL) and generic health-related (SF-36) questionnaires. Results: Between 2017 and 2020, 316 patients were enrolled in 26 centers in eight countries, of which 168 (53%) patients had been assigned to edoxaban and 148 (47%) to warfarin during the Hokusai-VTE trial. Clinical, demographic, and thrombus-specific characteristics were comparable for both groups. Mean (SD) time since randomization in the Hokusai-VTE trial was 7.0 (1.0) years. PTS was diagnosed in 85 (51%) patients treated with edoxaban and 62 (42%) patients treated with warfarin (adjusted odds ratio 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.6). Mean differences in QoL scores between treatment groups were not clinically relevant. Conclusion: Contrary to our hypothesis, the prevalence of PTS tended to be higher in patients treated with edoxaban compared with warfarin. No differences in QoL were observed. Further research is warranted to unravel the role of anticoagulant therapy on development of PTS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".