Dabigatran for Treatment and Secondary Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Pediatric Congenital Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Congenital heart disease (CHD) is common in children and associated with greater risk of thrombotic complications. Management of these complications with standard‐of‐care treatment is suboptimal for these children. Methods and Results The effectiveness and safety of dabigatran were demonstrated in pivotal pediatric studies for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE; NCT01895777) and secondary VTE prevention (NCT02197416). We report safety and efficacy outcomes from subgroup analyses of these studies for children with CHD (diagnosed according to local practice) and those without. In NCT01895777, 17/21 (81.0%) and 16/27 (59.3%) patients with CHD (including cyanotic) treated with dabigatran and standard of care, respectively, met the primary end point (complete thrombus resolution, freedom from recurrent VTE, and freedom from VTE‐related death; odds ratio [OR], 0.34 [95% CI, 0.08–1.23]). In patients without CHD, 41.0% (n=64) versus 34.9% (n=22) achieved this end point with the respective treatments (OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.42–1.41]). Although numerical differences were observed, no heterogeneity in treatment effect of dabigatran on the composite primary end point was detected in patients with and without CHD (interaction P =0.2674). In NCT02197416, recurrent VTE at 12 months occurred in 0/17 patients with CHD versus 3/194 (1.5%) without. No patient with CHD experienced major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events. Conclusions Data on favorable anticoagulant alternatives for the unmet needs of children with CHD are emerging, and our exploratory results suggest that dabigatran could be an appropriate treatment choice, although challenging sample size limitations in pediatric studies require cautious interpretation of findings. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifiers: NCT01895777, NCT02197416.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".