Antiplatelet therapy and coronary artery bypass graft surgery: perioperative safety and efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet therapy is critical in the management of coronary artery disease. For patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), controversy remains regarding the safety of preoperative antiplatelet therapy and the optimal postoperative antiplatelet regimen to maintain graft patency and reduce ischemic complications. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this systematic review is to evaluate the risks and benefits of preoperative aspirin and clopidogrel therapy, to identify the optimal timing and dose of aspirin following CABG, and to assess the role of postoperative clopidogrel therapy. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to retrieve relevant articles from the Medline database published between 1978 and 2008. RESULTS: With respect to aspirin, the published data suggest that it should be held for 7 - 10 days preoperatively in patients undergoing elective CABG. However, in the current era of routine antifibrinolytic therapy and the high prevalence of patients with extensive atherosclerotic disease, this practice has been put into question. Clopidogrel should be held for at least 5 days before CABG to avoid perioperative bleeding complications. Following surgery, extensive evidence supports the use of aspirin, in doses of 100 - 325 mg daily, to be administered in 48 h postoperatively and continued indefinitely. Less is known regarding the use of clopidogrel following CABG, although it is now recommended as postoperative antiplatelet therapy in patients with recent acute coronary syndromes. CONCLUSION: Despite > 30 years of experience with antiplatelet agents during CABG, questions remain regarding their perioperative safety and efficacy. The results of continuing randomized controlled trials should further clarify the role of perioperative aspirin and clopidogrel therapy and help redefine the modern antiplatelet management of coronary artery bypass patients.
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 | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".