Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension: First Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are becoming increasingly popular clinically, but their safety and effectiveness profile in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is not well-established. Literature from the PubMed and EMBASE databases was systematically screened up to February 2024 to identify relevant studies on the use of DOACs in CTEPH patients. The bias risk of RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. The quality of observational prospective cohorts was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool. Data pooled from different studies were analyzed. Results from 4 studies were gathered, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 2 prospective cohorts, with a total of 2038 patients, of which 751 were on DOACs and 1287 were on vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Similar rates of all-cause mortality (3.33% vs 3.33%, RD = −0.01%, 95% CI [−0.02%, 0.00%], P = .17), VTE recurrence (1.46% vs 2.12%, RD = −0.00%, 95% CI [−0.01%, 0.01%], P = .92) were observed. DOACs were associated with a nonsignificant reduction in bleeding events including major bleeding (2.22% vs 3.71%, RD = −0.01%, 95% CI [−0.04%, 0.01%], P = .30), any bleeding (5.33% vs 9.94%, RD = −0.03%, 95% CI [−0.07%, 0.01%], P = .10), and minor bleeding (4.17% vs 13.3%, RD = −0.06%, 95% CI [−0.23%, 0.10%], P = .45). Data pooled from existing perspective trials suggests the use of DOACs in CTEPH patients as an effective and safe alternative to VKAs.
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 | 0.026 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.090 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".