Trial reportJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2020
Direct oral anticoagulant plus antiplatelet therapy: prescribing practices and bleeding outcomes.
Trial report in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants with and without Aspirin: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2022Article
- Article
- Anticoagulant Use as an Independent Risk Factor and Higher In-Hospital Mortality in Patients Showing Alveolar Hemorrhage in Diffuse Lung Disease.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Concurrent antiplatelet therapy (APT) is common during warfarin therapy but is less well-documented during direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy. Combined anticoagulant and APT use has been associated with increased bleeding risk without providing additional protection against thrombosis. This study aimed to describe single-center prescribing rates of DOAC + APT as well as compare bleeding rates between DOAC monotherapy and DOAC + APT cohorts. Patients receiving DOAC therapy were evaluated for APT use at the time of hospital discharge. Patients were categorized into DOAC monotherapy and DOAC + APT cohorts. Primary outcomes included DOAC + APT prescribing rate as well as rates of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) within six months after hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included rates of thromboembolism and all-cause mortality. Of 407 patients receiving DOAC therapy, 78 (19.2%) also received APT at hospital discharge. Common indications for APT included secondary cardiovascular event prevention (57.7%) and primary cardiovascular event prevention (29.5%). The indication for APT could not be determined in 12.8% of patients. The major bleeding rate was 1.3% for DOAC + APT and 1.2% for DOAC monotherapy (p = 0.95). The CRNMB rate was 10.2% for DOAC + APT and 6.4% for DOAC monotherapy (p = 0.23). Thromboembolism and mortality were infrequent in both cohorts. DOAC + APT was documented in approximately 1 of 5 patients. Adding APT to DOAC therapy did not significantly increase the major bleeding or CRNMB rates compared to DOAC monotherapy but the sample size limits drawing conclusions about the safety of these regimens. Targeting primary prevention or unclear indications for APT could be a focus of future interventions.
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.