SynthesisClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
Oral Anticoagulation Monotherapy vs Dual-Pathway Antithrombotic Therapy in Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundThis study aimed to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral anticoagulant (OAC) monotherapy with combination therapy of OAC plus single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) and an indication for long-term anticoagulation.MethodsA systematic screening of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central databases was conducted until 12 Mar 2026 to identify RCTs comparing OAC monotherapy with OAC plus SAPT in CCS patients. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and net adverse clinical events (NACE). Secondary endpoints included major bleeding, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and stroke. End point data were pooled using random-effect models, to generate hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsSix RCTs involving 5048 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed that OAC monotherapy significantly reduced the risk of NACE compared to combination therapy (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.77). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality overall (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.51-1.10). OAC monotherapy substantially decreased major bleeding (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.32-0.70) and cardiovascular death (HR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.50-0.95) and there was no statistically significant difference in other secondary outcomes.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that OAC monotherapy is a safer alternative to combination therapy in anticoagulated patients with CCS, without increasing ischemic risk.
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.