MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910540289 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210821

Competing risks of major bleeding and thrombotic events with prasugrel-based dual antiplatelet therapy after stent implantation - An observational analysis from BASKET-PROVE II

2019· article· en· W2910540289 on OpenAlexaff
Raban Jeger, Matthias Pfisterer, D. Vogt, Søren Galatius, Ulrik Abildgaard, Christoph Naber, Hannes Alber, Franz R. Eberli, David J. Kurz, Giovanni Pedrazzini, André Vuilliomenet, Daniel Weilenmann, Hans Rickli, Kim Wadt Hansen, Peter Rickenbacher, David Conen, Christian Müller, Stefan Osswald, Nicole Gilgen, Christoph Kaiser

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersDaiichi Sankyo CompanyEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsPrasugrelMedicineDiscontinuationInternal medicineHazard ratioMyocardial infarctionCardiologyThrombosisStentPercutaneous coronary interventionConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) prevents thrombotic events after coronary stent implantation but may induce bleedings, specifically in elderly patients. However, a competitive risk analysis is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the determinants of major bleeding and the balance between the competing risks of major bleeding and thrombotic events during prasugrel-based DAPT after stent implantation. METHODS: Overall, 2,291 patients randomized to drug-eluting or bare metal stents and treated with prasugrel 10mg/day for 1 year were followed over 2 years for major bleeding (BARC 3/5) and thrombotic events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definitive/probable stent thrombosis). Prasugrel dose was reduced to 5mg in patients >75 years and/or <60kg. Predictors of major bleeding and competing risks of major bleeding and thrombotic events were assessed. RESULTS: Two-year rates of major bleeding and thrombotic events were 2.9% and 9.0%, respectively. The only independent predictor of major bleeding was age (hazard ratio per year increase 1.05 [1.02,1.07], p<0.001). The relationship between major bleeding and age was non-linear, with lowest hazard ratios at 57 years and an exponential increase only above 65 years. In contrast, the relationship between thrombotic events and age was linear and continuously increasing with older age. While the competing risk of thrombotic events was higher than that of major bleeding in younger patients, the two risks were similar in older patients. After discontinuation of prasugrel, bleeding events leveled off in all patients, while thrombotic events continued to increase. CONCLUSIONS: In prasugrel-based DAPT, age is the strongest risk factor for major bleeding, increasing exponentially >65 years. In younger patients, thrombotic events represent a higher risk than bleeding, while thrombotic and bleeding risks were similar in older patients. Important clinical implications relate to prasugrel dose in the elderly, duration of DAPT and the competing risk balance necessitating individualized treatment decisions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207