Observational studyPloS one2020
Outcomes in relation to antithrombotic therapy among patients with atrial fibrillation after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Observational study in PloS one, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes in elderly Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease. A report from the Optimal Thromboprophylaxis in Elderly Chinese Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (ChiOTEAF) registry.Journal of arrhythmia · 2022Article
- Longitudinal Patterns in Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulant Era: A Nationwide Population-Based Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsWe investigated the prognostic impact of antithrombotic regimens at 1-year after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHOD AND
resultsA total of 13,278 AF patients who underwent PCI from 2009 to 2013 were selected from Korean National Health Insurance Service database. Patients were categorized by antithrombotic regimens at 1-year after PCI: (1) OAC with or without single antiplatelet (OAC±SAPT); (2) triple therapy (TT) and (3) antiplatelets (APT) only. After propensity score matching, composite ischaemia (death, myocardial infarction, and stroke), composite bleeding (intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal bleeding), and a composite clinical outcome (composite ischaemia and bleeding) were compared. Of total population, 1,100 (8.3%), 746 (5.6%), and 11,432 (86.1%) were treated with OAC±SAPT, TT, and APT only, respectively. Compared to OAC±SAPT group, the TT group had significantly higher risk of the composite clinical outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-2.13) attributed to a higher trend in both ischaemia (HR 1.63, 95% CI 0.99-2.67) and bleeding (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.69-2.13). The APT only group showed a higher risk of ischaemia (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.25-2.74), despite a lower risk of bleeding (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.94) compared to OAC±SAPT group.
conclusionsOAC±SAPT was associated with better clinical outcomes compared to TT or APT only treatments, beyond 1-year after PCI among Asians with AF.
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.