Extended Duration Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at elevated risk of ischemic and bleeding events. However, the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after PCI in patients with PAD remains unclear. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed through June 2017 using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases with the following key terms: "dual antiplatelet therapy", "P2Y12 inhibitor", "myocardial infarction", "percutaneous coronary intervention", "stent", "peripheral arterial disease", and "ankle-brachial index". The analysis was restricted to randomized trials published in English in patients with PAD receiving extended DAPT (> 12-month) after PCI. Overall analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 with the Mantel-Haenszel method. Results: Two randomized controlled trials involving 895 patients were included in this review. Compared to the placebo group, there was no statistical significance in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in patients receiving extended DAPT (odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 - 1.57; P = 0.46). The results were associated with substantial heterogeneity (I 2 = 71%, P = 0.07). Extended DAPT was not significantly associated with increased moderate/severe bleeding events (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.84 - 3.18; P = 0.15; I 2 = 0%, P = 0.59). The extended DAPT was associated with 82% relative risk reduction in the events of definite/probably stent thrombosis. Conclusions: Among patients with PAD, extended DAPT after PCI resulted in a non-significant difference in ischemic and bleeding events compared to placebo, respectively. The routine use of extended DAPT in this cohort should be carefully evaluated. Cardiol Res. 2018;9(3):137-143 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr719w
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".