Inhibitors in hemophilia: association with surgery plans and outcomes in a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The development of antibodies (inhibitors) to clotting factors compromises the management of hemophilia A and B, resulting in resistance to clotting factor replacement and, in many cases, the need for bypassing agents to achieve hemostasis. Objectives To evaluate the association between the presence of inhibitors and achievement of perioperative hemostasis, development of complications, and presurgical plan deviations. Methods We conducted a retrospective study using data from the Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center surgical database (1998-2019). Associations between perioperative outcomes and inhibitor status were assessed while controlling for patient and procedural characteristics. Results A total of 1492 surgeries were performed in 539 persons with hemophilia, with 72 procedures performed in 20 patients with inhibitors (15 with hemophilia A; 5 with hemophilia B). High-responding inhibitors (>5 BU/mL) were present in 27 procedures, low-responding inhibitors (≤5 BU/mL) were present in in 13 procedures, and 32 procedures were performed in patients with historically persistent inhibitors. Adjusting for age, diagnosis, surgery setting, hemostatic agent, data collection period, and surgery type (major/minor), inhibitors were associated with a higher risk of inadequate perioperative hemostasis (33.4% vs 8.6%; adjusted relative risk [adjRR], 3.78; 95% CI, 1.89-7.56; P < .001). Reported complications include hemorrhage, fever, pain, thrombosis, and infections. Complications were not statistically different based on inhibitor status (31.7% vs 14.6%; adjRR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.63-2.49; P = .526). Presurgical plan deviations (eg, hemostatic medication dose adjustments, procedure rescheduling, and changes in the length of postoperative hospitalization) occurred more frequently in surgeries involving inhibitors (70.8 vs 39.5%; adjRR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.12-1.93; P = .005). Conclusion Inhibitors are associated with higher risks of adverse perioperative outcomes. Strategies to address inhibitor development should be prioritized to avoid undesirable perioperative outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".