Comparative Analysis of the Effects of Three Antithrombotic Regimens on Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Recent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Stent. A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic atrial fibrillation (AF), coexisting with a history of recent coronary angioplasty with stent (PCI-S) represents an encoded indication for oral anticoagulation with warfarin (OAC) plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Methods: Using a retrospective cohort study we determined the respective impacts on cardio- vascular outcomes of three different pharmacologic regimens, i.e., triple therapy (TT) with warfarin + clopidogrel and aspirin, dual therapy (DT) with warfarin +clopidogrel or aspirin, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel + aspirin. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, ischemic cardiac events, ischemic cerebral events, bleeding events. The inclusion criterion was the coexistence of an indication for OAC (e.g., chronic AF) with an indication for dual antiplatelet therapy due to recent PCI-S. Results: Among the 98 patients enrolled, 48 (49%), 31 (31.6%), and 19(19.4%) patients were prescribed TT, DT, and DAPT, respectively. Throughout a mean follow-up of 378± 15.7days, there were no significant differences between the three regimens for all abovementioned outcomes. In particular, the total frequency of major bleeding was similar in the three groups: 5 cases (10.4%) in TT, one case (3.22%) in DT and no case in DAPT groups (p [chi-square test] = 0.1987). Conclusions: TT, DT and DAPT displayed similar efficacy and safety. Although the superiority of OAC vs. DAPT for stroke prevention in AF patients has been demonstrated by previous randomized trials, a smaller frequency of high thromboembolic risks' features in DAPT group of the present study may have prevented the observation of a higher incidence of ischemic stroke in this group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".