ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2012
The antithrombotic management of patients on oral anticoagulation undergoing coronary stent implantation: an update.
Review in Internal and emergency medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Combination of a new oral anticoagulant, aspirin and clopidogrel after acute coronary syndrome: new therapeutic standard?Internal and emergency medicine · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Triple therapy (TT) of warfarin, aspirin, and clopidogrel is currently recommended as the optimal antithrombotic treatment in patients on long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) for clinical conditions at moderate-high thromboembolic risk, such as moderate-high risk atrial fibrillation, mechanical heart valve, cardiogenic embolism, etc., who undergo coronary stent implantation. While being recognized as the most effective treatment for preventing major adverse cardiac events, stent thrombosis and stroke, TT is associated with an increased risk of bleeding, which apparently increases as the duration of TT is prolonged. Available evidence, however, is flawed by important limitations, including the limited size and retrospective design of most of the studies, as well as, the underreporting of the treatment that was actually ongoing at the time of an event. Recent data derived from larger, prospective studies have broadened and strengthened the recommendations that have been earlier issued by Scientific Associations. While confirming the overall superior net clinical benefit of TT in patients at moderate-high thromboembolic risk, recent data suggest that: (1) TT is likely associated with minor rather than major bleeding complications, and (2) accurate stratification of thromboembolic and bleeding risk may allow optimization of the antithrombotic treatment at discharge. Therefore, while still awaiting well designed, prospective, randomized trials, current data indicate that TT is the treatment of choice for patients on OAC at moderate-high thromboembolic risk, provided that meticulous review is frequently carried out in order to minimize and to detect early bleeding complications, while discontinuation of OAC and substitution with dual antiplatelet treatment is warranted in low-risk patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21387196What 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.