MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388537926 · doi:10.1097/bsd.0000000000001552

Chemoprophylactic Anticoagulation After Spine Surgery Does Not Increase Epidural Hematoma Risk

2023· article· en· W4388537926 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Cloney, Ekamjeet S. Dhillon, Benjamin S. Hopkins, Najib E. El Tecle, Tyler R. Koski, Nader S. Dahdaleh

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Spine Surgery A Spine Publication · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Hematomas and Complications
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemoprophylaxisMedicinePropensity score matchingAspirinOdds ratioSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To calculate the magnitude of any increased risk of epidural hematoma (EDH) associated with chemoprophylactic anticoagulation (chemoprophylaxis), if any. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Chemoprophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolic events may be associated with an increased risk of EDH after spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 6869 consecutive spine surgeries performed at our institution were identified, and clinical and demographic data were collected. We identified cases in which symptomatic EDHs were evacuated within 30 days postoperatively. Patients receiving chemoprophylaxis and controls were matched using K-nearest neighbor propensity score matching to calculate the effect of anticoagulation on the rate of postoperative EDH. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 1071 patients who received chemoprophylaxis were matched to 1585 controls. Propensity scores were well balanced between populations (Rubin B=20.6, Rubin R=1.05), and an 89.6% reduction in bias was achieved, with a remaining mean bias of 3.2%. The effect of chemoprophylaxis on EDH was insignificant ( P =0.294). Symptomatic EDH was independently associated with having a transfusion [odds ratio (OR)=7.30 (1.15, 46.20), P =0.035], having thoracic-level surgery [OR=41.19 (3.75, 452.4), P =0.002], and increasing body mass index [OR=1.44 (1.04, 1.98), P =0.028] but was not associated with chemoprophylaxis. Five out of 13 patients who developed EDH (38.5%) were receiving some form of anticoagulation, including 1 patient on therapeutic anticoagulation, 1 concurrently on aspirin and chemoprophylaxis, and 2 who were also found to have developed thrombocytopenia postoperatively. The median time on anticoagulation before EDH was 8.1 days. A higher proportion of patients who developed EDH also developed venous thromboembolic events than the general population [38.5% vs. 2.4%, OR=25.34 (9.226, 79.68), P <0.0001], and 1 EDH patient died from pulmonary embolism while off chemoprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Chemoprophylactic anticoagulation did not cause an increase in the rate of spinal EDH in our patient population.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Spine Surgery A Spine PublicationSame topicSpinal Hematomas and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207