Abstract 19212: Clinical Outcomes More Than 12 Months After PCI in Diabetic Patients With or Without DAPT: Results From the FREEDOM Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diabetic patients have higher risks of recurrent events after PCI. The role of long term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in such patients remains uncertain. Hypothesis: DAPT therapy would be associated with reduced long-term major cardiovascular events. Methods: We evaluated this in the FREEDOM trial which compared PCI to CABG in diabetic patients with multi-vessels disease. We performed an analysis of all subjects who underwent PCI to assess the composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke from 12 months up to 5 years after PCI for patients on DAPT or ASA alone. We also assessed the occurrence of major bleeding onset in this PCI cohort. Results: Of the 951 patients who underwent PCI in the FREEDOM trial, 682 patients (n=357 on DAPT; n=325 ASA only) had no event at 12 months and were included in this analysis. There was a trend towards increased composite events in the DAPT group compared with the ASA group (adjusted HR:1.48; 95% CI:0.92-2.40,p=0.11). There was no difference in major bleeding from 12 months through 5 years follow-up. Although no significant differences in outcome were observed between the two groups (see table), the baseline characteristics, EuroSCORE, history of myocardial infarction and current smoker, were significantly different. Conclusions: In the FREEDOM trial, prolonged DAPT after 12 months after PCI was not associated with a reduction in the composite ischemic outcome. These findings may reflect decision-making around the use of DAPT in trial patients or unmeasured risk factors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".