Desmopressin (DDAVP) use in patients with von Willebrand disease: A single‐centre retrospective review of test response and clinical outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Peri-procedural management of von Willebrand disease (VWD) utilizes von Willebrand factor (VWF) concentrates or desmopressin (DDAVP) to increase VWF levels. DDAVP is safe, easily administered, and inexpensive. Currently, a consensus definition for adequate DDAVP response is lacking, and outcomes of peri-procedural DDAVP use in VWD patients are seldom reported. AIM: This single-centre retrospective review aims to characterize DDAVP-responsiveness and assess clinical outcomes of peri-procedural DDAVP use in VWD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed records for all our adult VWD patients (age ≥18 years) who underwent DDAVP challenge testing between January 2007 and January 2022. DDAVP-responsiveness was assessed using six definitions. Bleeding outcomes following procedures covered by DDAVP were classified as excessive or expected bleeding. RESULTS: Eighty-four of 94 (89.4%) patients were DDAVP-responsive by our definition (1-h VWF Activity/Factor VIII ≥0.50 IU/mL). However, the proportion of DDAVP-responders varied from 53.2% to 91.5%, depending on the literature definition used. Ninety-nine procedures pre-treated with DDAVP were performed during the study period. Eighty-six (86.7%) procedures (31 major; 55 minor) were covered with only DDAVP ± tranexamic acid (TXA). Excessive bleeding occurred following 4/31 major procedures and 2/55 minor procedures (both performed in a single patient with a bleeding score of 16). When covered with DDAVP+Factor ± TXA, one each of 10 major and 3 minor procedures (performed in 2 patients with bleeding scores 15-16) resulted in post-procedural bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-procedural DDAVP prophylaxis appears to be effective among individuals with VWD. Beyond DDAVP-responsiveness, patient bleeding history and procedure invasiveness should be considered in determining suitability for DDAVP prophylaxis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".