Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26274912›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Different Antiplatelet Agents for Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events and Leg Amputations in Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Konstantinos Katsanos, Stavros Spiliopoulos, Prakash Saha, Athanasios Diamantopoulos, Narayan Karunanithy, Miltiadis Krokidis, Bijan Modarai, Dimitris Karnabatidis

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Konstantinos KatsanosDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, King's Health Partners, London, United Kingdom; Department of Interventional Radiology, Patras University Hospital, School of Medicine, Rion, Greece.
Stavros SpiliopoulosDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Patras University Hospital, School of Medicine, Rion, Greece.
Prakash SahaAcademic Department of Surgery, Cardiovascular Division, Kings College London, BHF Centre of Research Excellence & NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at King's Health Partners, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Athanasios DiamantopoulosDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, King's Health Partners, London, United Kingdom.
Narayan KarunanithyDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, King's Health Partners, London, United Kingdom.
Miltiadis KrokidisDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Bijan ModaraiAcademic Department of Surgery, Cardiovascular Division, Kings College London, BHF Centre of Research Excellence & NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at King's Health Partners, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Dimitris KarnabatidisDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Patras University Hospital, School of Medicine, Rion, Greece.
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/11/37/28819
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a lack of consensus regarding which type of antiplatelet agent should be used in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and little is known on the advantages and disadvantages of dual antiplatelet therapy. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing different antiplatelet drugs (Aspirin, Ticlopidine, Clopidogrel, Ticagrelor, Cilostazol, Picotamide and Vorapaxar as monotherapies or in combination with aspirin) in PAD patients (PROSPERO public database; CRD42014010299).We collated evidence from previous relevant meta-analyses and searched online databases. Primary efficacy endpoints were: (1) the composite rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; including vascular deaths, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke), and (2) the rate of major leg amputations. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of severe bleeding events. Bayesian models were employed for multiple treatment comparisons and risk-stratified hierarchies of comparative efficacy were produced to aid medical decision making. Number-Needed-to-Treat (NNT) and Number-Needed-to-Harm (NNH) are reported in case of significant results. We analyzed 49 RCTs comprising 34,518 patients with 88,358 person-years of follow-up with placebo as reference treatment. Aspirin, Cilostazol, Vorapaxar and Picotamide were ineffective in reducing MACE. A significant MACE reduction was noted with Ticagrelor plus aspirin (RR: 0.67; 95%CrI: 0.46-0.96, NNT = 66), Clopidogrel (RR: 0.72; 95%CrI: 0.58-0.91, NNT = 80), Ticlopidine (RR: 0.75; 95%CrI: 0.58-0.96, NNT = 87), and Clopidogrel plus aspirin (RR: 0.78; 95%CrI: 0.61-0.99, NNT = 98). Dual antiplatelet therapy with Clopidogrel plus aspirin significantly reduced major amputations following leg revascularization (RR: 0.68; 95%CrI: 0.46-0.99 compared to aspirin, NNT = 94). The risk of severe bleeding was significantly higher with Ticlopidine (RR: 5.03; 95%CrI: 1.23-39.6, NNH = 25), Vorapaxar (RR: 1.80; 95%CrI: 1.22-2.69, NNH = 130), and Clopidogrel plus aspirin (RR: 1.48; 95%CrI: 1.05-2.10, NNH = 215). Clopidogrel monotherapy showed the most favourable benefit-harm profile (79% cumulative rank probability best and 77% cumulative rank probability safest). In conclusion, Clopidogrel should be the indicated antiplatelet agent in PAD patients. Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and Clopidogrel can reduce the rate of major leg amputations following revascularization, but carries a slightly higher risk of severe bleeding.

Indexed as

Amputation, SurgicalLegDatabases, FactualFemaleHemorrhageHumansMaleMyocardial InfarctionPeripheral Arterial DiseasePlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStrokePlatelet Aggregation Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID26274912
PMCPMC4537264
OpenAlexW2121978193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.