ReviewClinical cardiology2014
New antithrombotics for secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome.
Review in Clinical cardiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Trends in Off-Label Indications of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Acute Coronary Syndrome.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Proteinases and their receptors in inflammatory arthritis: an overview.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2018Review
- Efficacy and safety of vorapaxar for the prevention of adverse cardiac events in patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2016Article
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
Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) usually receive acetylsalicylic acid plus an adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor inhibitor to reduce the long-term risk of recurrent events. However, patients receiving standard antiplatelet prophylaxis still face a substantial risk of recurrent events. Strategies involving 3 antithrombotic agents with different modes of action have now been tested. In Thrombin Receptor Antagonists for Clinical Event Reduction (TRA-CER), compared with standard care alone, bleeding complications including intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) were increased with the addition of vorapaxar, without efficacy benefit. In Trial to Assess the Effects of SCH 530348 in Preventing Heart Attack and Stroke in Patients With Atherosclerosis (TRA 2°P-TIMI 50), the addition of vorapaxar reduced recurrent events compared with standard care in stable patients with prior myocardial infarction. This study was terminated early in patients with prior stroke owing to excess ICH, though an increased risk of ICH or fatal bleeding was not detected in patients with prior myocardial infarction. The Apixaban for Prevention of Acute Ischemic and Safety Events 2 (APPRAISE-2) trial of standard-dose apixaban added to standard care in patients with ACS was also stopped early owing to excess serious bleeding. However, in Rivaroxaban in Combination With Aspirin Alone or With Aspirin and a Thienopyridine in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes (ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51), fatal bleeding or fatal ICH did not increase with low-dose rivaroxaban added to low-dose acetylsalicylic acid-based standard care compared with standard care alone. In that trial, a significant reduction of recurrent vascular events was shown with 3 antithrombotic regimens compared with standard care. Therefore, depending on drug dose and patient population, further reductions in recurrent vascular events after ACS may be possible in future clinical practice, with a favorable benefit-risk profile.
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.