Benefits of anticoagulation prophylaxis in children undergoing kidney transplant: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Graft thrombosis is a preventable cause of early allograft loss after pediatric kidney transplant, but the role of primary thromboprophylaxis is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of thromboprophylaxis in preventing graft thrombosis among children (0-21 years) undergoing kidney transplant. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Libraries from inception until September 2024. The primary outcome assessed by meta-analysis was graft thrombosis, and the secondary outcome was major bleeding (per International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria). RESULTS: Twenty-five observational studies (21 retrospective and 4 prospective) describing 2094 patients (1659 cases and 435 controls) met eligibility criteria. Thromboprophylaxis was used universally (ie, all kidney recipients in the study) in 64% (1055/1659) or only in high-risk patients (eg, recipient weight <20 kg and age <5 years) in 36% (604/1659). Compared with no preventive measures for thrombosis, thromboprophylaxis was associated with reduced risk of graft thrombosis (odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18-0.53). Subgroup analyses of heparinoid-only, universal thromboprophylaxis, and high risk only protocols revealed similar findings. Thromboprophylaxis was not associated with increased risk of bleeding resulting in surgical exploration or graft loss. The overall risk of bias was moderate. Studies showed high clinical and methodologic heterogeneity in study populations and thromboprophylaxis protocols. CONCLUSION: Primary thromboprophylaxis appears effective in preventing kidney graft loss from vascular thrombosis in pediatric recipients. This benefit may be offset by the risk of bleeding, although clarity on bleeding risk factors is lacking. We identified knowledge gaps, including uncertainty about optimal thromboprophylaxis regimens and treatment duration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".