Trial reportIndian heart journal2018
Comparison of lower loading dose of prasugrel with conventional loading dose of prasugrel in Indian patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.
Trial report in Indian heart journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Aggregometry Response to Half-dose Prasugrel in Flow-diverting Stent Implantation.Clinical neuroradiology · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough conventional 60 mg of prasugrel allows for rapid and potent platelet inhibition within 30 min after loading dose, the efficacy and safety of lower doses of prasugrel in Indian patients has not yet been investigated.
objectiveThe study sought to compare the efficacy of a lower loading dose of prasugrel with conventional loading dose of prasugrel in Indian patients. MATERIAL AND
methodsThree hundred thirty-two Indian patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled in the study. Participants were randomly administered loading doses of prasugrel 60 mg (group A, n = 166) or 30 mg (group B, n = 166) before undergoing elective PCI in a 1:1 manner. Primary efficacy end point was composite of in-hospital death and stent thrombosis at 96 h, while safety end point was in-hospital bleeding.
resultsThe two groups did not differ in their baseline characteristics. The primary efficacy end point was 0.6% in both the conventional 60 mg loading dose (LD) and lower 30 mg LD groups (p = not significant). Minor bleeding was significantly less in group B [Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 1, A = 6.63% vs B = 1.81%, odds ratio (OR) = 3.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.06-14.08, P = 0.05]. Major bleeding was higher in group A (A = 3.61%, vs B = 1.81%, OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 0.50-8.29, P = 0.50).
conclusionIn Indian patients, 30 mg of prasugrel loading is as effective as 60 mg of prasugrel with significantly less minor bleeding.
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.