ArticleClinical cardiology2022
Cilostazol combined with P2Y
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of Vasoactive Hormone-Induced Signal Transduction in Cardiac Hypertrophy and Heart Failure.Cells · 2024Review
- Cilostazol combined with P2YClinical cardiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCilostazol combined with P2Y HYPOTHESIS: Cilostazol combined with P2Y
methodsIn this multicenter prospective cohort trial, patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary stent implantation were assigned to the cilostazol group (cilostazol plus P2Y
resultsOne hundred and fifty-four aspirin-intolerant percutaneous coronary stent implantation patients and 154 matched aspirin-tolerant patients from a total of 2059 percutaneous coronary stent implantation patients were enrolled. The relative activation level of PAC-1, CD62p, and platelet reaction index reflected by the VASP-P test were similar in the two groups (p > .05). After 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of all-cause death was 1.9% in the cilostazol group and 1.3% in the aspirin group (risk ratio [RR], 1.500; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.254-8.852; p = 1.000); the incidence of acute myocardial infarction was 0.6% in the cilostazol group and 1.3% in the aspirin group (RR, 0.500; 95% CI, 0.046-5.457; p = 1.000). No significant difference was seen in other MACCE events, or in any types of BARC bleeding events.
conclusionsCilostazol combined with P2Y
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.