| Title |
Dabigatran: Review of Pharmacology and Management of Bleeding Complications of This Novel Oral Anticoagulant
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Toxicology, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13181-011-0178-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Ganetsky, Kavita M. Babu, Steven D. Salhanick, Robert S. Brown, Edward W. Boyer |
| Abstract |
Dabigatran (Pradaxa) is a competitive direct thrombin inhibitor approved by the US FDA for prevention of embolic stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Dabigatran has a pharmacokinetic profile that produces predictable anticoagulation responses, does not undergo CYP 450 metabolism, has few drug-drug and drug-food interactions, and does not require frequent laboratory monitoring of clotting parameters. Clinicians are rapidly prescribing this agent as a replacement for warfarin therapy. However, no therapeutic agent has been accepted to reliably reverse the hemorrhagic complications of dabigatran. As of yet, there is no solid evidence to guide management of bleeding complications; management should start with local control of bleeding when possible and transfusion of pRBCs if needed. Transfusion of FFP would not be expected to help control bleeding. Limited and mixed data exist for transfusion of factor VIIa and prothrombin complex concentrates; these therapies should be considered as well as dialysis, which will increase elimination in patients with life-threatening or closed-space bleeding due to dabigatran. We present an article that reviews the pharmacokinetics, clinical trial literature, and consensus guidelines regarding this novel oral anticoagulant. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Slovenia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 204 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 12% |
| Other | 22 | 10% |
| Researcher | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 49 | 23% |
| Unknown | 47 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 101 | 48% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 27 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 4% |
| Unknown | 55 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,879,327
of 22,952,268 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#144
of 671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,223
of 125,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,952,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 125,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.