Preliminary Evidence of a High Risk of Bleeding on Aspirin plus Clopidogrel in Aspirin-Naïve Patients in the Acute Phase after TIA or Minor Ischaemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aspirin plus clopidogrel (A+C) may be more effective than aspirin only (AO) acutely after TIA and minor stroke, but the risk of bleeding in the acute phase is uncertain. We determined this risk, focusing particularly on aspirin-naïve patients. METHODS: We studied consecutive referrals to the EXPRESS study clinic from 1/4/02 to 31/3/08. A 30- to 90-day course of A+C was given to patients presenting acutely. Bleeding events were identified by face-to-face follow-up, diagnostic coding, and blood transfusion data. Unpublished data from the FASTER pilot trial were also studied. RESULTS: Among 633 EXPRESS patients treated with aspirin (+/- clopidogrel), there were 12 spontaneous bleeds (6 minor, 6 major/life-threatening) within 90 days after assessment, with a higher risk for A+C vs. AO (8/247 vs. 4/386, p = 0.047 overall; 5/247 vs. 1/386, p = 0.03 for major/life-threatening bleeds). The excess of major/life-threatening bleeds on A+C vs. AO was seen in aspirin-naïve patients, (4/137 vs. 0/273, p = 0.01), but not in prior-aspirin patients (1/110 vs. 1/113, p = 0.98). All symptomatic bleeds in the FASTER pilot also occurred in aspirin-naïve patients randomized to A+C (6/104 vs. 0/94, p = 0.03). In a pooled analysis, major/life-threatening bleeding on A+C occurred in 9/241 aspirin-naïve patients (90-day risk = 4.8%, 1.6-8.0) versus 1/204 prior-aspirin patients (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Although based on relatively few outcomes, the high risk of major bleeding on A+C acutely after TIA or minor stroke in aspirin-naïve patients is a cause for concern. The potential risk to patients is sufficient to mandate detailed monitoring of bleeding risk in ongoing trials and stratify results by whether patients were aspirin-naïve.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".