MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W49204369 · doi:10.1055/s-2004-822999

Heparin and Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Therapy for Venous Thromboembolism: Will Unfractionated Heparin Survive?

2004· review· en· W49204369 on OpenAlexaff
Russell D. Hull, Graham F. Pineo

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeparinIntensive care medicineAnticoagulantRandomized controlled trialContext (archaeology)ThrombosisClinical trialDeep veinSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent improvements in clinical trials methodology and the use of accurate objective tests to detect venous thromboembolism (VTE) have made it possible to carry out a series of randomized trials to evaluate various treatments for VTE. The results of these trials have resolved many of the uncertainties a clinician confronts in selecting the appropriate course of anticoagulant therapy. These trials have shown that the intensity of both initial heparin treatment and long-term anticoagulant therapy must be sufficient to prevent unacceptable rates of recurrence of VTE. Patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis who receive inadequate anticoagulant therapy have a risk of clinically evident, objectively documented recurrent VTE that approaches 20% to 25%. The need for adequate therapy with heparin and the importance of monitoring blood levels of the effect of heparin have been established. The importance of achieving adequate heparinization was suggested by a nonrandomized trial in 1972 and randomized trials in the 1980s have confirmed this finding. Furthermore, randomized trials have demonstrated the importance of achieving adequate heparinization early in the course of therapy. Unfractionated heparin by continuous intravenous infusion has provided an effective therapy for more than half a century, but the need to monitor therapy and establish therapeutic levels is a fundamental problem. It is evident that validated heparin protocols are more successful in establishing adequate heparinization than intuitive ordering by the clinician. However, even with the best of care using a heparin protocol, some patients treated with intravenous heparin will receive subtherapeutic treatment. In this context, subtherapeutic treatment reflects a practical limitation of the use of unfractionated heparin, rather than a poor standard of care. Furthermore, it is recognized that the practical difficulties associated with heparin administration are compounded by the substantive practical difficulties of standardizing activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) testing and the therapeutic range. Our findings have emphasized the confounding effect that initial heparin treatment has on long-term outcome. In all trials of long-term treatment, it is imperative that the initial therapy is of adequate intensity and duration; failure to administer adequate initial treatment may lead to a poor outcome that is falsely attributed to the long-term therapy under evaluation. Treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), which does not require monitoring or dose finding, has largely replaced unfractionated heparin for the initial management of VTE. Efficacy in terms of recurrent VTE or extension of thrombus has been at least as good with LMWH as unfractionated heparin and there is evidence that the incidence of major bleeding, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and osteoporosis are less with LMWH as compared with unfractionated heparin. Although unfractionated heparin may survive as a treatment option for acute VTE, its use has been largely supplanted by LMWH.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.093
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.156
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0930.156
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.015
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0160.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations19
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Thrombosis and HemostasisSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207