Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy and associated outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: contemporary practice insights from the Canadian Observational Antiplatelet Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: There is a paucity of real-world, contemporary data of practice patterns and clinical outcomes following dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results: The Canadian Observational Antiplatelet Study was a prospective, multicentre, cohort study examining adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonist use following PCI for AMI. We compared practice patterns, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes in relation to DAPT duration (<6 weeks, 6 weeks to <6 months, 6 to <12, and ≥12 months). The primary outcome was the composite of non-fatal AMI, unplanned coronary revascularization, stent thrombosis, new or worsening heart failure, cardiogenic shock, or stroke. We identified 2034 patients with AMI treated with PCI. DAPT duration was <6 weeks in 5.2% of patients; 6 weeks to <6 months in 7.0%; 6 to <12 months in 12.6%; and ≥12 months in 75.3%. Patients who discontinued DAPT early had higher GRACE risk scores. Overall, mortality rate at 15 months was 2.5%. Compared with a duration of DAPT of ≥12 months, discontinuation of DAPT <6 weeks (P < 0.0001) and 6 weeks to <6 months (P = 0.02), but not 6 months to <12 months (P = 0.06), were independently associated with a higher incidence of the primary outcome among survivors. Conclusion: One-in-four patients with AMI treated with PCI discontinued DAPT prior to the guideline-recommended 12-month duration. Patients in whom DAPT was discontinued early were at higher baseline risk and had higher rates of non-fatal ischaemic events during follow up.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".