ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2019
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: How Long Is Long Enough?
Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward Brief Dual Antiplatelet Therapy and P2Y12 Inhibitors for Monotherapy After PCI.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2021Review
- Study on the Effect of Antiplatelet and Gastric Mucosal Protection of Traditional Chinese Medicine Invigorating Qi and Hemostasis.Journal of inflammation research · 2021Article
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
purpose of reviewThe optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has been a topic of considerable interest in recent years, as the risk of stent thrombosis has decreased with newer generation stents and the impact of significant bleeding events on clinical outcomes is increasingly apparent. The purpose of this review is to highlight the landmark studies examining short-duration (6 months or less) and extended-duration (greater than 12 months) DAPT as well as provide information about prediction tools to help guide individualized patient treatment decisions. RECENT
findingsShort-duration DAPT is acceptably safe when clinically necessary, though recent trials demonstrate non-significant trends towards increased risk of ischemic events with shorter durations. Extended-duration DAPT clearly confers a reduced risk of subsequent ischemic events but at an increased risk of bleeding. Understanding the perceived ischemic and bleeding risks for each individual patient is paramount in deciding targeted DAPT duration. For patients at a higher bleeding risk with a low ischemic risk, short-duration DAPT (6 months) is acceptable. For patients with continued ischemic risk factors and a low bleeding risk, extended-duration DAPT (up to 30 months) is recommended. The PRECISE DAPT and DAPT prediction tools are helpful in making this determination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30929096What 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.