SynthesisCurrent cardiology reviews2017
Triple Therapy Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Literature Review.
Synthesis in Current cardiology reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and a history of atrial fibrillation (AF) have indications for both dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and oral anticoagulation (OAC). Triple therapy (TT), the combination of DAPT and OAC, is recommended in guidelines. We examined studies comparing clinical outcomes on DAPT versus TT for patients with AF and ACS.
methodsWe searched Medline, Medline pending, EMBASE and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases for studies published between January 2000 to December 2016 in AF patients with ACS that compared DAPT and TT that reported ischaemic and/or bleeding outcomes. Studies that were not purely an AF population were excluded.
resultsTen studies were included in the review, all of which were observational, 8 of which were retrospective. None of the studies detailed the specifics of treatment allocation. All but one were of AF patients with a mix of stable coronary disease and ACS patients. TT was associated with increased bleeding when compared to DAPT, with adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.25 to 6.84. While the largest study reported a reduction in stroke associated with TT (odds ratio 0.67), two other studies reported non-significant increases in stroke with TT. Variable composite ischaemic endpoints were reported, none showing a statistical significant difference between DAPT and TT.
conclusionIn patients with ACS and AF, TT is likely to be associated with increased risk of bleeding, without a clear reduction in ischaemic endpoints. The quality of the evidence to support current guidelines for this patient group was generally poor.
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.