MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

2018· letter· en· W2902127546 on OpenAlexaff
Rodrigo Bagur, Sanjit S. Jolly

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research InstituteLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercutaneous coronary interventionMedicineCardiologyDual (grammatical number)Internal medicineMyocardial infarctionPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

he optimal duration of aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stable ischemic heart disease is uncertain and continues to be debated.The benefit of preventing myocardial infarction (MI) and stent thrombosis (ST) is balanced against an increased risk of bleeding when continuing dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 12 months.These findings were demonstrated in the large DAPT study, 1 which showed that DAPT (aspirin combined with clopidogrel or prasugrel) beyond 12 months after PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES), significantly reduced the risks of ST and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events but was linked to an increased risk of bleeding at 30 months compared with aspirin alone.Finally, rate of death from any cause was 2% in continued DAPT versus 1.5% in placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.00-1.85;P=0.05).Many have concluded that the risks and benefits that DAPT duration beyond 1 year should be individualized based on patient's bleeding and ischemic risks. PREDICTING THE RISK OF ISCHEMIC AND BLEEDING EVENTSSeveral risk scores have been developed to assist with the identification of patients with greater benefits of a prolonged/extended (>12 months) period with DAPT, [2][3][4][5] including the DAPT score 2 derived from the DAPT study. 1 Briefly, the DAPT score 2 (http://ww6.daptstudy.org)ranges from -2 to 10 and assigns points as follows: 0 for patients <65 years; -1 for 65 to 74 years; -2 points for ≥75 years; 2 points for saphenous vein graft PCI and history of congestive heart failure or left ventricular ejection fraction <30%; and 1 point for current cigarette smoking or within a year, diabetes mellitus, MI at presentation, stent diameter <3 mm, prior PCI or MI, and paclitaxel-eluting stent.A DAPT score of ≥2 identifies subjects with a favorable benefit/risk ratio for prolonged DAPT, whereas a score of <2 identifies those with an unfavorable benefit/risk ratio (increased risk of bleeding).2 RAPID OVERVIEW TO THE GUIDELINESThe American 6 guidelines changed in 2016 for aspirin/clopidogrel for at least 6 months in PCI for stable ischemic heart disease as a class I recommendation, then dropping to class IIb recommendation for 12 months of DAPT.The European 7 guidelines agreed with the later but point out continuing with DAPT with clopidogrel for >6 months and ≤30 months may be considered (class IIb recommendation) unless

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0300.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207