MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117950068 · doi:10.1186/s12893-015-0096-z

Should dual antiplatelet therapy be used in patients following coronary artery bypass surgery? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2015· review· en· W2117950068 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Surgery · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaCanadian Respiratory Research NetworkMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineClopidogrelAspirinPrasugrelTicagrelorRandomized controlled trialAcute coronary syndromeInternal medicineCardiologyPlatelet aggregation inhibitorSurgeryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We assessed the effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) post elective or urgent (i.e., post acute coronary syndrome [ACS]) coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Registry from inception to August 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults undergoing CABG comparing either dual vs. single antiplatelet therapy or higher- vs. lower-intensity DAPT were identified. RESULTS: Nine RCTs (n = 4,887) with up to 1y follow-up were included. Five RCTs enrolled patients post-elective CABG (n = 986). Two multi-centre RCTs enrolled ACS patients who subsequently underwent CABG (n = 2,155). These 7 RCTs compared clopidogrel plus aspirin to aspirin alone. Two other multi-centre RCTs reported on ACS patients who subsequently underwent CABG comparing higher intensity DAPT with either ticagrelor (n = 1,261) or prasugrel (n = 485) plus aspirin to clopidogrel plus aspirin. Post-operative anti-platelet therapy was started when chest tube bleeding was no longer significant, typically within 24-48 h. There were no differences in all-cause mortality in clopidogrel plus aspirin vs. aspirin RCTs; conversely, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in ticagrelor and prasugrel vs. clopidogrel RCTs (risk ratio[RR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval[CI] 0.33-0.71, p = 0.0002; 2 RCTs, n = 1695; I(2) = 0%; interaction p < 0.01 compared to clopidogrel plus aspirin vs aspirin RCTs). There were no differences in myocardial infarctions, strokes, or composite outcomes. Overall, major bleeding was not significantly increased (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.81-2.10, p = 0.27; 7 RCTs, n = 4500). There was heterogeneity (I(2) = 42%) due almost entirely to higher bleeding reported for the prasugrel RCT which included mainly CABG-related major bleeding (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.45-6.87, p = 0.004; 1 RCT, n = 437). CONCLUSIONS: Most RCT data for DAPT post CABG is derived from subgroups of ACS patients in DAPT RCTs requiring CABG who resume DAPT post-operatively. Limited RCT data with heterogeneous trial designs suggest that higher intensity (prasugrel or ticagrelor) but not lower intensity (clopidogrel) DAPT is associated with an approximate 50% lower mortality in ACS patients who underwent CABG based on post-randomization subsets from single RCTs. Large prospective RCTs evaluating the use of DAPT post-CABG are warranted to provide more definitive guidance for clinicians.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.1220.163
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.356
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.041 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it