Reduction in postpercutaneous coronary intervention angina in addition to gastrointestinal events in patients on combined proton pump inhibitors and dual antiplatelet therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a standard treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Studies have shown that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can potentially attenuate the antiplatelet effects of P2Y12 inhibitors with associated adverse cardiovascular outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medline was searched using Pubmed from inception to 8 November 2017 for randomized control trials studying the effect of PPIs on coronary artery disease with concomitant use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Overall, 692 studies were identified of which five randomized control trials were included. Statistical analysis was done using RevMan, version 5.3. RESULTS: Five studies with 6239 patients (3113 on PPI with DAPT and 3126 with only DAPT) were included. Our analysis showed that PPI significantly reduced the incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) bleed [22 vs. 66, odds ratio (OR)=0.37, confidence interval (CI)=0.23-0.61, P≤0.0001, I=0%], GI ulcers and GI erosions (7 vs. 18, OR=0.39, CI=0.16-0.94, P=0.04, I=0%), and the incidence of post-PCI unstable angina in patients treated with PPI and P2Y12 agents (46 vs. 67, OR=0.67, CI=0.45-0.99, P=0.05, I=0%). There was an insignificant difference in myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular cause of mortality. A trend toward decreased all-cause mortality with PPIs was noted. Heterogeneity was calculated using I. CONCLUSION: Concomitantly administered PPIs with P2Y12 inhibitors have a protective effect on the GI events. It also decreases the post-PCI angina without increased adverse cardiovascular outcomes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".