ReviewDrug safety2015
Risks and benefits of triple oral anti-thrombotic therapies after acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary intervention.
Review in Drug safety, 2015. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of effects of triple antithrombotic therapy and dual antiplatelet therapy on long-term outcomes of acute myocardial infarction.Heart and vessels · 2021Article
- Optimal medical therapy for secondary prevention after an acute coronary syndrome: 18-month follow-up results at a tertiary teaching hospital in South Korea.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2016Article
- Drug- and herb-induced liver injury: Progress, current challenges and emerging signals of post-marketing risk.World journal of hepatology · 2015Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The key pathophysiological process underlying symptomatic coronary artery disease, including acute coronary syndromes (ACS), is usually a rupture or an erosion of an atherosclerotic plaque, followed by platelet activation and subsequent thrombus formation. Early clinical trials showed benefit with long-term aspirin treatment, and later-based on large clinical trials-dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT), initially with clopidogrel, and more recently with prasugrel or ticagrelor, has become the established treatment in the post-ACS setting and after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Treatment with DAPT is recommended for both ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation ACS, as well as after PCI with stenting, in American and European clinical guidelines. Notwithstanding the benefits observed with DAPT, including third-generation P2Y12 receptor inhibitors plus aspirin, ACS patients remain at high risk for a recurrent cardiovascular event, suggesting that other treatment strategies, including the addition of a third oral anti-platelet agent or a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) to standard DAPT regimens, may provide additional benefit for post-ACS patients and for patients undergoing PCI. Adding a third anti-thrombotic agent to DAPT after an ACS event or a PCI procedure has been shown to have modest benefit in terms of ischemic event reduction, but has consistently been associated with increased bleeding complications. Therefore, the quest to optimize anti-thrombotic therapies post-ACS and post-PCI continues unabated but is tempered by the historical experiences to date that indicate that careful patient and dose selection will be critical features of future randomized trials.
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.