MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13031: A Randomized Trial Comparing the Effects of Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel on Myocardial Perfusion in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

2015· article· en· W2894806591 on OpenAlexaff
Matthieu Pelletier‐Galarneau, Chad Hunter, Kathryn J. Ascah, Rob Beanlands, Aun‐Yeong Chong, Benjamin J.W. Chow, Girish Dwivedi, Renée Hessian, Glenn R Wells, Robert A. deKemp, Terrence D. Ruddy

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTicagrelorMedicineClopidogrelP2Y12Coronary artery diseaseAdenosineLoading doseCardiologyInternal medicineCrossover studyAcute coronary syndromeAnesthesiaPharmacologyAspirinMyocardial infarctionPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Ticagrelor is a reversible P2Y12 receptor antagonist used in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In the PLATO trial, treatment with ticagrelor reduced mortality compared to clopidogrel, to which pleotropic mechanisms may have contributed. In this study, we compared the effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with stable coronary artery disease on myocardial blood flow (MBF) at rest and during intermediate and high dose adenosine infusion. Methods: Patients (n=22) were randomized using a double-blind crossover design to 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 5 days between the treatments. MBF was measured using Rb-82 PET-CT at baseline and at intermediate (80 mcg/kg/min) and high dose adenosine (140 mcg/kg/min). Results: Global MBF was significantly greater with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel at intermediate dose adenosine (1.28±0.55 versus 1.13±0.47, p=0.002), and not different at baseline (0.65±0.19 versus 0.60±0.15, p=0.4254) nor at high dose adenosine (1.64±0.40 versus 1.61±0.19, p=0.5302). In abnormal segments with low MBF reserve (<2.5), MBF was significantly greater with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel at intermediate and high dose of adenosine (p<0.0001), with no difference at baseline. For segments with high MBF reserve (≥2.5 and < 3.5), segmental MBF was significantly greater with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel at baseline (p<0.001) and at intermediate adenosine dose (p<0.0001). Conclusions: Global stress MBF was greater with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel during intermediate dose adenosine infusion. Regional MBF in segments with reduced MBF reserve was greater with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel during intermediate and high dose adenosine. This suggests that ticagrelor may potentiate adenosine-induced myocardial blood coronary flow increases in patients with stable CAD compared to clopidogrel; an effect that may explain the observed incremental mortality benefit observed with ticagrelor.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→