Combining warfarin and antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting in the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events: is it safe and effective to use just one antiplatelet agent?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To identify factors associated with the use of single or dual antiplatelet therapy in patients prescribed warfarin following coronary stenting and to investigate whether single (aspirin or thienopyridine) vs. dual antiplatelet therapy plus warfarin leads to an excess of adverse outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data from 800 patients with an acute coronary syndrome who underwent coronary stenting (130 patients received a drug-eluting stent) and were discharged on warfarin and either dual (n = 580) or single (n = 220) antiplatelet therapy. The use of single antiplatelet therapy was more common in Europe than in the USA (34 vs. 17%, P < 0.001). There was no difference in major bleeding in hospital or in 6-month mortality or myocardial infarction. In the single antiplatelet group, the use of either aspirin or thienopyridine (clopidogrel or ticlopidine) in combination with warfarin resulted in similar outcomes. CONCLUSION: Use of single vs. dual antiplatelet therapy and warfarin following stenting is common. In this observational study, there was no difference in mortality or myocardial infarction at 6 months; however, larger trials are needed to assert any firm recommendations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".