Anticoagulant stewardship: A modern review of unfractionated heparin treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Recent guidelines advocate a preference for low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) infusions to reduce the risk of major bleeding (MB) and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, as well as to improve cost-effectiveness. 1–6 Canadian initiatives have been successful in eliminating UFH administration in unnecessary situations. 7 In this study, we analyzed UFH use at a tertiary centre in Canada to identify cases in which UFH could have been avoided, identify characteristics associated with bleeding, and examine the efficacy and safety of infusions where the initial bolus was administered or withheld. Methods: We identified adults who received between 48 and 96 hours of a UFH infusion in a tertiary care hospital between 2021 and 2023. Consecutive patients were reviewed for bleeding events, patient factors known to influence bleeding, and whether patients had a contraindication to LMWH or another anticoagulant. Patients were deemed to have “appropriate” use of UFH in preference to more desirable anticoagulants if they had recent or ongoing bleeding, required an imminent procedure or surgery, have severe renal dysfunction (eGFR <30 mL/min), or could foreseeably require thrombolysis. Results: Of 127 patients, 16 (13%) were identified to have bleeding complications, including 14 episodes of MB. Bleeding episodes were significantly associated with any measured aPTT greater than 150 seconds (s) during treatment ( P = .0285). Omission of initial bolus dosing was not associated with reduced bleeding events or the incidence of any aPTT measurement >150s. Omission of initial bolus dosing was associated with subtherapeutic aPTT measurement at 6 hours (46%) and 12 hours (25%) post-UFH administration. We identified high rates (42%) of UFH selection where an alternative anticoagulant could have been used. Conclusion: We demonstrate a high rate of avoidable intravenous UFH selection at a tertiary Canadian centre. We observed high bleeding rates with UFH that were not mitigated by omitting the initial bolus. We suggest institutional policies to improve and restrict the use of UFH.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".