ArticleCardiovascular drugs and therapy2026
Anticoagulant versus Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients with Coronary Artery Ectasia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cardiovascular drugs and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07511257 (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Versus Antiplatelet Monotherapy Plus Anticoagulation in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Coronary Artery Ectasia), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Versus Antiplatelet Monotherapy Plus Anticoagulation in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Coronary Artery Ectasia: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Antithrombotic Therapy in Coronary Artery Aneurysm, Ectasia, and Slow Flow: A Systematic Review.Clinical cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Response to: Refining Antithrombotic Therapy in Coronary Artery Ectasia.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatients with coronary ectasia (CAE) have an increased risk of major cardiovascular events (MACE). Current preventive treatments are uncertain, with oral anticoagulants often prescribed based on limited retrospective studies. Our aim is to help address the question: what is the most appropriate treatment?
methodsUsing a retrospective cohort of patients with an ACS and CAE in a single center in Mexico City, two groups were observed based on the treatment at discharge: dual antiplatelet therapy (group 1) and anticoagulation with either a VKA or a DOAC, regardless of antiplatelet therapy (group 2). The main outcome was MACE, which was a composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, and ischemic stroke at 4.5 years follow-up.
resultsA total of 354 patients admitted for ACS and CAE were included. 228 (64.4%) patients were classified in the DAPT group and 126 (35.5%) in the anticoagulants group. The DAPT group had higher type 2 diabetes rates, NSTEMI presentation, and lower-grade ectasia. The anticoagulation group had higher STEMI presentation and higher-grade ectasia. The DAPT group had 33 (14.5%) events of MACE, whereas the anticoagulation group had 16 (13.1%) events. Anticoagulants were not associated with a risk reduction of the primary endpoint (HR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.47-1.54; p = 0.59), nor any of the individual components.
conclusionThis retrospective cohort study showed similar effectiveness between DAPT and anticoagulation in patients with ACS and CAE for preventing MACE, and lower bleeding risk. Further research is needed to identify optimal candidates for each antithrombotic regime.
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.