MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Influence of obesity on the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4306255035 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Beatriz Rocha Darzé, Queila Borges de Oliveira, M Santos Viana, E Sahade Darze, L E Fonteles Ritt

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntithromboticInternal medicineMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialPopulationMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Introduction The prevalence of obesity has increased in recent decades and, considering its association with a higher risk of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) and Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS), it is necessary to establish an anticoagulation regimen suitable for this group of patients. The obese population is historically underrepresented in clinical trials, so the effect of obesity on the efficacy and safety of antithrombotic treatment is still uncertain. Purpose To evaluate the influence of obesity on the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in patients with ACS or VTE. Methods This is a systematic review and meta-analysis, using the MEDLINE/PubMed, Scielo, Cochrane, EMBASE and Lilacs databases. Articles characterized as randomized, cohort or case-control studies that compared the occurrence of clinical outcomes (mortality or bleeding) between obese and non-obese patients using parenteral anticoagulants for the treatment of ACS or VTE were selected. To assess the risk of bias, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used. Statistical analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software with relative risk and 95% CI as analytical parameters. Results Six articles, with a total of 40.939 patients, were eligible for this review, being 3 randomized clinical trials and 3 retrospective cohorts. Of the patients, 87.7% had ACS. The mortality rate was 2.6% (95% CI 2.2–3.0%) in obese patients and 3.6% (95% CI 3.3–4.0%) in non-obese patients, while the rate of major bleeding was 6.0% (95% CI 5.6–6.4%) in the obese group and 6.2% (95% CI 5.9–6.5%) in the non-obese group. The incidence of major bleeding was similar between groups with RR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77–1.04, p=0.14. The outcome incidence remained comparable when studies were analyzed separately by anticoagulant: enoxaparin (RR: 0.87, 95% CI, 0.70–1.08, p=0.21) or UFH (RR: 0.96, 95% CI, 0.79–1.17, p=0.67). The mortality rate, measured by only 2 studies, was lower in obese patients, with RR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.59–0.87, p=0.0007. Conclusion In patients treated for VTE or ACS, rates of thrombotic complications, death and bleeding were comparable between obese and non-obese patients, regardless of the antithrombotic used. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.032
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.136 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→