MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372311437 · doi:10.1056/evidoa2300067

Apixaban or Warfarin in Patients with an On-X Mechanical Aortic Valve

2023· article· en· W4372311437 on OpenAlexaff
Tracy Y. Wang, Lars G. Svensson, Jun Wen, Andrew M. Vekstein, Marc Gerdisch, Vijay U. Rao, Michael G. Moront, Doug Johnston, Renato D. Lópes, Alma Chavez, Marc Ruel, Eugene H. Blackstone, Richard C. Becker, Vinod H. Thourani, John D. Puskas, Hussein R. Al‐Khalidi, David G. Cable, John A. Elefteriades, Alberto Pochettino, J. Alan Wolfe, Allen Graeve, Ibrahim Sultan, Ashraf A. Sabe, Héctor I. Michelena, John H. Alexander

Bibliographic record

VenueNEJM Evidence · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApixabanWarfarinMedicineMechanical heart-valvePIEZO1Internal medicineCardiologyMechanical heartAortic valveAtrial fibrillationRivaroxabanSurgeryHeart valve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vitamin K antagonists are the only oral anticoagulants approved to prevent valve thrombosis and valve-related thromboembolism in patients with mechanical heart valves. Whether patients with an On-X mechanical aortic valve can be safely anticoagulated with apixaban is unknown. METHODS: Patients with an On-X aortic valve implanted at least 3 months before enrollment were randomly assigned to receive apixaban 5 mg twice daily or warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2.0 to 3.0). The primary efficacy end point was the composite of valve thrombosis or valve-related thromboembolism with coprimary analyses comparing apixaban with warfarin for noninferiority and comparing the apixaban event rate with an objective performance criterion (OPC). RESULTS: The trial was stopped after 863 participants were enrolled owing to an excess of thromboembolic events in the apixaban group. Most (94%) participants took aspirin. A total of 26 primary end-point events occurred, 20 (in 16 participants) in the apixaban group (4.2%/patient-year; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3 to 6.0) and 6 (in 6 participants) in the warfarin group (1.3%/patient-year; 95% CI, 0.3 to 2.3). The difference in primary end-point rates between the apixaban and warfarin groups was 2.9 (95% CI, 0.8 to 5.0); noninferiority and OPC success criteria were not met. Major bleeding rates were 3.6%/patient-year with apixaban and 4.5%/patient-year with warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban did not demonstrate noninferiority to warfarin and is less effective than warfarin for the prevention of valve thrombosis or thromboembolism in patients with an On-X mechanical aortic valve. (Funded by Artivion; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04142658.)

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations113
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNEJM EvidenceSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207