ArticleCureus2024
Anticoagulation for Mechanical Aortic Valve in a Patient With Aortic Dissection and Pulmonary Hemorrhage: A Case Report.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute aortic dissections are considered surgical emergencies because they are catastrophic bleeding events. The risk of bleeding is further increased if the patient requires anticoagulation for other comorbidities, such as a mechanical heart valve. This case study describes a 73-year-old gentleman who presented with massive hemoptysis due to an acute aortic dissection complicated by pulmonary hemorrhage in the context of previous aortic dissection with multiple repair surgeries and residual chronic aortic dissection. He was also on warfarin for a mechanical aortic valve complicated by supratherapeutic international normalized ratio. His acute aortic dissection was treated conservatively without surgery, and he survived. Concerning the risk of thromboembolism from the mechanical aortic valve, anticoagulation was reintroduced one week after his initial bleeding. We changed warfarin to enoxaparin, which was started at a small dose, 40 mg subcutaneously once a day, then gradually increased to the full therapeutic dose, 90 mg (1 mg/kg) twice daily over a week. He was not fully anticoagulated for two weeks. Fortunately, he did not develop any thrombosis. Hemoglobin and Factor Xa levels were closely monitored. He tolerated the enoxaparin without further bleeding. This type of case is rare and has not been previously reported, considering the patient survived acute aortic dissection with conservative management, did not develop any thrombosis from the mechanical aortic valve when anticoagulation was withheld, and did not experience rebleeding when anticoagulation was restarted. Further research and guidelines are needed to assist clinicians in managing anticoagulation when facing the dilemmas of the risk of bleeding and the risk of thromboembolism. This is particularly important in complex scenarios, such as for patients with mechanical heart valves who subsequently develop contraindications such as aortic dissection or other life-threatening bleeding events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.