ArticleCVIR endovascular2026
Anticoagulation practices in venous occlusive disease after stent placement.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCharacterize physician anticoagulation practices after stent placement in patients with venous occlusive disease. MATERIALS AND
methodsSurvey-based analysis was conducted between January 2023 and April 2023 (for 109 days) evaluating practices of post venous stent placement anticoagulation regimens. A survey investigated provider demographics, agent selection, dosing, duration, and patient factors taken in agent choice. The survey was distributed through email lists and promoted on social media and limited users to one response. Questions stratified for both superior vena cava (SVC) and upper extremity and inferior vena cava (IVC) and lower extremity interventions. Descriptive statistics determined the significance of the regimen utilization.
resultsOne hundred twenty-nine respondents participated in the study, with interventional radiologists constituting 94%. The preferred regimen for SVC interventions was direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) and single antiplatelet therapy, accounting for 39/117 of respondents. For IVC interventions, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and single antiplatelet therapy was the regimen of choice representing 12/38 of preferences. SVC intervention therapy duration was most common to be lifetime for aspirin (10; 43%), 3 months for non-ASA antiplatelet agents (23; 52%), and 6 months for anticoagulants (32; 44%). For IVC therapies, the trend of drug duration for aspirin was most common to be lifetime (6;40%), for non-ASA antiplatelets was 3 months (10; 53%), and for anticoagulants tied for 6 and 12 months (7; 30% each). Eight risk factors affected post-intervention anticoagulation selection.
conclusionThis work highlights the most common post-venous stenting anticoagulation regimens currently in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42853531What 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.