SynthesisAging2020
Efficacy and safety of an antithrombotic regimen for atrial fibrillation patients with acute coronary syndrome or those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Aging, 2020. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contemporary Use and Clinical Significance of Initial Triple Versus Double Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Direct oral anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy for extracranial neurovascular stenting in patients with atrial fibrillation.BMC neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the benefit of dual therapy in reducing ischemic events in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dual and triple therapies (oral anticoagulation plus aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor) for AF patients with ACS or those undergoing PCI. The composite primary outcome included all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), or stroke. Relative risk (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as the measure of effect size. Four RCTs with 10,969 patients were included. Dual therapy had a higher event rate of primary outcome than triple therapy (RR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.03-1.28; P<0.0001). Dual therapy was associated with significantly higher MI risk, insignificantly higher ST risk, and significantly lower major bleeding risk than triple therapy (RR1.23, 95%CI 1.01-1.49, P = 0.036; RR 1.43, 95 %CI 0.98-2.09, P = 0.064; and RR0.58, 95%CI 0.45-0.76, P<0.0001, respectively). Dual antithrombotic therapy was associated with higher ischemic risk but lower major bleeding risk than triple therapy. The data suggest that antithrombotic regimens should be based on tradeoffs between ischemia and bleeding risk.
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.