Dual direct oral anticoagulant therapy in challenging thrombosis: a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: While anticoagulation therapy is highly effective at treating venous thromboembolism, some patients can develop rapidly progressive thrombosis in multiple organs or sites despite therapeutic anticoagulation. Effective strategies to manage life-threatening thrombosis in these patients are elusive. Objectives: We describe our experience using dual direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy with a factor (F)Xa inhibitor (such as rivaroxaban or apixaban) and a FIIa inhibitor (dabigatran) for refractory cases of thrombosis. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all patients treated with simultaneous dabigatran and an oral FXa inhibitor at our institution was conducted. We included all patients over the age of 18. The study was approved by the University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board (REB number: H23-02575). Results: Eight patients were included. All patients initiated standard therapeutic anticoagulation upon diagnosis of acute venous thromboembolism with a median of 3 breakthrough thrombotic events prior to dual DOAC use. Five patients had a positive heparin-induced thrombocytopenia screen, but only 2 had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia confirmed on serotonin release assay testing. There were no recurrent deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or bleeding events during dual DOAC use. Most patients ultimately transitioned to a single oral FXa inhibitor. Conclusion: Dual DOAC therapy may be a useful strategy for managing challenging thrombosis cases resistant to conventional anticoagulation. Further research is warranted to validate these findings and explore the broader applicability of dual DOAC therapy in challenging thrombotic scenarios.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".