Antithrombotic drugs and the risk of bloody punctures in regional anesthesia - a retrospective registry analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The risk of bleeding during regional anesthesia implementation in patients on antithrombotic therapy remains poorly characterized. We; therefore, analyzed bloody tap rates and adjusted ORs comparing patients who take antithrombotic medications with those who do not. METHODS: 65,814 qualifying regional anesthetics (2007-2019) from the Network for Safety in Regional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Therapy registry were included in a retrospective cohort analysis. Procedures in patients who took antithrombotic drugs were compared with procedures in patients who did not. The primary outcome was bloody puncture, defined as any kind of blood aspiration during placement. Secondarily, we considered timely discontinuation of thromboprophylaxis and the impact of various drug classes. As a sensitivity analysis, we used propensity matched groups. RESULTS: Patients on antithrombotic therapy were more likely to have a bloody puncture during peripheral nerve block implementation (adjusted OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.93; p<0.001) irrespective of whether therapy was discontinued. In contrast, bloody neuraxial blocks were no more common in patients who took antithrombotic medications (adjusted OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; p=0.523) so long as they were paused per guideline. Across both peripheral and neuraxial blocks, concurrent use of more than one platelet and/or coagulation cascade inhibitor nearly doubled the odds (adjusted OR, 1.89; 95% CI 1.48 to 2.40; p<0.001). DISCUSSION: Patients on antithrombotic therapy receiving peripheral blocks are at increased risk for bloody punctures irrespective of discontinuation practice. Patients having neuraxial blocks are not at increased risk so long as antithrombotics are stopped per guidelines. Patients who take combined medications are at especially high risk. Guidelines for discontinuing antithrombotic treatments for neuraxial anesthesia appear to be effective and should possibly be extended to high-risk peripheral blocks.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".