Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with CKD and Drug-Eluting Stents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives Whether prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is more protective in patients with CKD and drug-eluting stents compared with shorter DAPT is uncertain. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine whether shorter DAPT in patients with drug-eluting stents and CKD is associated with lower mortality or major adverse cardiovascular event rates compared with longer DAPT. Design, setting, participants, & measurements A Medline literature research was conducted to identify randomized trials in patients with drug-eluting stents comparing different DAPT duration strategies. Inclusion of patients with CKD was also required. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or stent thrombosis (definite or probable). Major bleeding was the secondary outcome. The risk ratio (RR) was estimated using a random-effects model. Results Five randomized trials were included (1902 patients with CKD). Short DAPT (≤6 months) was associated with a similar incidence of the primary outcome, compared with 12-month DAPT among patients with CKD (48 versus 50 events; RR, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.64 to 1.36; P =0.72). Twelve-month DAPT was also associated with a similar incidence of the primary outcome compared with extended DAPT (≥30 months) in the CKD subgroup (35 versus 35 events; RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.62; P =0.87). Numerically lower major bleeding event rates were detected with shorter versus 12-month DAPT (9 versus 13 events; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.60; P =0.39) and 12-month versus extended DAPT (9 versus 12 events; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.93; P =0.66) in patients with CKD. Conclusions Short DAPT does not appear to be inferior to longer DAPT in patients with CKD and drug-eluting stents. Because of imprecision in estimates (few events and wide confidence intervals), no definite conclusions can be drawn with respect to stent thrombosis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".