SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
'Aspirin versus ticagrelor for the management after coronary revascularization - a systematic review and meta‑analysis of randomised trials'.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy versus aspirin monotherapy in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing ticagrelor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy after PCI or CABG. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar were searched up to 19th January 2026. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding, repeat revascularization and stent thrombosis. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were pooled using a random-effects model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Knapp-Hartung adjustment.
resultsFive randomised trials involving 25,994 participants were included, of whom 12,998 received ticagrelor monotherapy and 12,996 received aspirin monotherapy. Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of MACE than aspirin monotherapy (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95; p = 0.012; I² = 0%). All-cause mortality was also reduced with ticagrelor (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.97; p = 0.023; I² = 0%). No significant differences were observed for myocardial infarction (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.07; p = 0.138; I² = 0%), stroke (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.19; p = 0.913; I²=0%), major bleeding (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20; p = 0.976; I² = 0%), repeat revascularization (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.37; p = 0.452; I² = 45.8%) or stent thrombosis (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.90; p = 0.481; I² = 0%).
conclusionTicagrelor monotherapy was associated with a potential reduction in MACE and all-cause mortality compared with aspirin monotherapy after coronary revascularisation, without increasing major bleeding. However, these findings were driven primarily by PCI trials, particularly the GLOBAL LEADERS and GLASSY trial program, and should be interpreted cautiously because PCI and CABG populations were analyzed together. TRIAL REGISTRATRION: CRD420261286239.
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.