ArticleCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2025
Long-term bleeding events post-percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with malignancy with and without anticoagulant therapy.
Article in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and External Validation of a Machine Learning-Based Bleeding Risk Score for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Retrospective observational analysis of prasugrel dosage afterpercutaneous coronary intervention using the Clinical Deep DataAccumulation System database.Global health & medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The prevalence of malignancies in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasing with aging. Active malignancy is a significant contributor to high bleeding risk. For cancer patients requiring oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy, the choice between direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) and warfarin is critical. The aim of this study was to investigate long-term bleeding events in patients with malignancy undergoing PCI. The CLIDAS (Clinical Deep Data Accumulation System) multicenter database includes data from seven tertiary medical hospitals in Japan. This retrospective analysis included 6451 patients who underwent PCI between April 2013 and March 2019 and completed 3-year follow-up. The patients were divided into two groups; No malignancy (n = 5787) and Malignancy group (n = 664). Malignancy was defined by a history of cancer treatment. These groups were further subcategorized based on OAC therapy; (1) No malignancy without OAC (n = 5134), (2) No malignancy with DOAC (n = 261), (3) No malignancy with warfarin (n = 392), (4) Malignancy without OAC (n = 589), (5) Malignancy with DOAC (n = 38), and (6) Malignancy with warfarin (n = 37). The primary outcome was the incidence of bleeding events, defined according to the Global Use of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Coronary Arteries classification of moderate and severe bleeding. The secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and net adverse clinical events (NACE). Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that the malignancy with warfarin group had a significantly higher risk of bleeding events compared to the malignancy without OAC group (hazard ratio [HR], 3.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-9.61, p value = 0.009). No significant differences were observed for MACE (HR, 1.39; 95% CI 0.59-3.25, p value = 0.454) or NACE (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.80-3.29; p value = 0.184). Malignancy patients receiving warfarin were associated with a higher risk of bleeding events. DOACs may represent a preferable alternative to warfarin with regard to bleeding risk in patients with malignancy undergoing PCI.
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.