ReviewJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2000
Clopidogrel and coronary stenting: what is the next question?
Review in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changing roles of anticoagulant and antiplatelet treatment during percutaneous coronary intervention.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2005Review
- Antiplatelet therapies in combination for the treatment of patients with stable and unstable coronary artery disease.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2002Review
- Complications of oral antiplatelet medications.Current cardiology reports · 2001Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Today, following coronary stenting, clopidogrel has largely replaced ticlopidine as part of combination antiplatelet therapy following coronary stenting primarily due to its better tolerability. While there is no randomized, blinded, efficacy trial of ticlopidine versus clopidogrel, there are ample data from a number of observational studies, randomized non-blinded trials, and a randomized blinded safety trial to prove that clopidogrel is not only safer than ticlopidine, but also at least as efficacious following stenting. With over 10,000 treated patients, pooled data suggest similar rates of stent thrombosis (clopidogrel 0.98% vs. ticlopidine 0.98%) and lower rates of major adverse cardiac events with clopidogrel (clopidogrel 1.63% vs. ticlopidine 4.52%, p<0.001), with a clear advantage for clopidogrel regarding adverse events (clopidogrel 5.91% vs. ticlopidine 9.75%, p<0.001). With clopidogrel's superior safety and at least equivalent efficacy, the question of "which thienopyridine?" post-stenting has been answered. Now the questions "how much?", "how soon?" and "how long?" must be addressed. The Clopidogrel for the Reduction of Events During Observation (CREDO) trial is a multi-center, double-blind, randomized trial designed to answer these remaining questions. CREDO will evaluate the efficacy and safety of clopidogrel pretreatment versus no pretreatment, and prolonged (1 year), versus short-term (1 month) dual antiplatelet therapy in 2,000 patients undergoing planned or highly probable coronary intervention with a stent.
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.