MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610939032 · doi:10.1161/jaha.117.005894

Randomized Trial Comparing the Effects of Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel on Myocardial Perfusion in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

2017· article· en· W2610939032 on OpenAlexaff
Matthieu Pelletier‐Galarneau, Chad Hunter, Kathryn J. Ascah, Rob Beanlands, Girish Dwivedi, Robert A. deKemp, Benjamin J.W. Chow, Terrence D. Ruddy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsOttawa Heart InstituteOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTicagrelorMedicineClopidogrelP2Y12AdenosineCoronary artery diseaseCardiologyInternal medicineCrossover studyLoading doseAspirinAnesthesiaPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Ticagrelor is a P2Y 12 receptor inhibitor used in acute coronary syndromes to reduce platelet activity and to decrease thrombus formation. Ticagrelor is associated with a reduction in mortality incremental to that observed with clopidogrel, potentially related to its non–antiplatelet effects. Evidence from animal models indicates that ticagrelor potentiates adenosine‐induced myocardial blood flow ( MBF ) increases. We investigated MBF at rest and during adenosine‐induced hyperemia in patients with stable coronary artery disease treated with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel. Methods and Results This randomized double‐blinded crossover study included 22 patients who received therapeutic interventions of ticagrelor 90 mg orally twice a day for 10 days and clopidogrel 75 mg orally once a day for 10 days, with a washout period of at least 10 days between the treatments. Global and regional MBF and myocardial flow reserve were measured using rubidium 82 positron emission tomography/computed tomography at baseline and during intermediate‐ and high‐dose adenosine. Global MBF was significantly greater with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel (1.28±0.55 versus 1.13±0.47 mL/min per gram, P =0.002) at intermediate‐dose adenosine and not different at baseline (0.65±0.19 versus 0.60±0.15 mL/min per gram, P =0.084) and at high‐dose adenosine (1.64±0.40 versus 1.61±0.19 mL/min per gram, P =0.53). In regions with impaired myocardial flow reserve (<2.5), MBF was greater with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel during intermediate and high doses of adenosine ( P <0.0001), whereas the differences were not significant at baseline. Conclusions Ticagrelor potentiates global and regional adenosine‐induced MBF increases in patients with stable coronary artery disease. This effect may contribute to the incremental mortality benefit compared with clopidogrel. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 01894789.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207