ReviewCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2018
Antiplatelet agents in uncertain clinical scenarios-a bleeding nightmare.
Review in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of off-label low-dose compared with standard-dose antiplatelet agents in patients with coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis.Open heart · 2026Pooled it
- PSG6: A mitochondrially-targeted gentisic acid derivative exerts antiplatelet action via mitochondrial complex I inhibition.Redox biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Bleeding risk assessment in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2019Review
- From Coronaries to Cirrhosis: The Role of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in End-Stage Liver Disease.Journal of investigative medicine high impact case reportsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite over 40 years since the first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed, the optimal dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regime poses a significant challenge for clinicians, especially in certain scenarios. DAPT is the standard of care in PCI following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or for elective patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). There remains significant uncertainty regarding DAPT in patients at high risk of bleeding, such as the elderly and patients requiring anticoagulation. More and more clinicians are faced with a dilemma of weighing risks and benefits from the increasing list of potent, new antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in a growing, aging population. Historically, most studies failed to recognize bleeding risk, instead focusing on ischemic risk. In recent years however, bleeding has been recognized as a very significant driver of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing PCI. There is a paucity of data in this cohort leading to divergent and sometimes conflicting recommendations, largely based on expert consensus of opinion. In the current review, we critically evaluate the available evidence in these uncertain scenarios.
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.