On-X aortic valve replacement patients treated with low-dose warfarin and low-dose aspirin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess if warfarin targeted to international normalized ratio (INR) 1.8 (range 1.5-2.0) is safe for all patients with an On-X aortic mechanical valve. METHODS: This prospective, observational registry follows patients receiving warfarin targeted at an INR of 1.8 (range 1.5-2.0) plus daily aspirin (75-100 mg) after On-X aortic valve replacement. The primary end point is a composite of thromboembolism, valve thrombosis and major bleeding. Secondary end points include the individual rates of thromboembolism, valve thrombosis and major bleeding, as well as the composite in subgroups of home or clinic-monitored INR and risk categorization for thromboembolism. The control was the patient group randomized to standard-dose warfarin (INR 2.0-3.0) plus daily aspirin 81 mg from the PROACT trial. RESULTS: A total of 510 patients were enroled at 23 centres in the UK, USA and Canada. Currently, the median follow-up duration is 3.4 years, and median achieved INR is 1.9. The primary composite end point rate in the low INR patients is 2.31% vs 5.39% (95% confidence interval 4.12-6.93%) per patient-year in the PROACT control group, constituting a 57% reduction. Results are consistent in subgroups of home or clinic-monitored, and high-risk patients, with reductions of 56%, 57% and 57%, respectively. Major and total bleeding are decreased by 85% and 73%, respectively, with similar rates of thromboembolic events. No valve thrombosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Interim results suggest that warfarin targeted at an INR of 1.8 (range 1.5-2.0) plus aspirin is safe and effective in patients with an On-X aortic mechanical valve with or without home INR monitoring.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".