ArticleEuropean heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology2024
Controversy in cardiology: clopidogrel or acetylsalicylic acid in the treatment of chronic coronary syndromes?
Article in European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Secondary prevention of patients with chronic coronary syndrome is based on the long-term use of a single anti-aggregating drug which is traditionally represented by acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in light of the results of studies and meta-analyses which have demonstrated a clear anti-ischaemic efficacy against of an acceptable increase in the risk of bleeding, especially intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding. The availability of drugs such as clopidogrel, which inhibits platelet activity through the P2Y12 receptor pathway, has called into question this paradigm, also in consideration of the fact that the scientific evidence that supports the use of ASA in secondary prevention is based on dated studies with some limitations. Over the last few years, randomized trials have demonstrated how clopidogrel has an efficacy profile comparable to that of ASA and a safety profile that is sometimes even better. In light of the new evidence, it is therefore legitimate to ask whether in this clinical scenario, ASA should still be considered the drug of choice or whether clopidogrel could represent the preferable alternative.
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.