Combination Antiplatelet and Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients With Coronary and Peripheral Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay for the treatment of acute and chronic arterial disease involving the coronary and peripheral beds. However, questions remain about optimal antithrombotic therapy for long-term treatment of chronic vascular disease. The observation that dual antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel was associated with lower thrombotic event rates than acetylsalicylic acid monotherapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention changed the treatment paradigm. Moreover, the demonstration that more pharmacodynamically potent P2Y 12 inhibitors than clopidogrel were associated with fewer thrombotic event occurrences further solidified the dual antiplatelet therapy approach. However, recurrent thrombotic events occur in ≈1 in 10 patients in the first year following an acute coronary syndrome event, despite treatment with the most potent P2Y 12 inhibitors, a limitation that has stimulated interest in exploring the efficacy and safety of approaches using anticoagulants on top of antiplatelet therapy. These investigations have included treatment with very-low-dose oral anticoagulation, and even its replacement of acetylsalicylic acid in the presence of a P2Y 12 inhibitor, in patients stabilized after an acute coronary syndrome event. Recent basic and translational studies have suggested noncanonical effects of coagulation factor inhibition that may further modulate clinical benefits. This in-depth review will discuss developments in our understanding of the roles that platelets and coagulation factors play in atherothrombosis and review the rationale and clinical evidence for combining antiplatelet and oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with coronary and peripheral artery disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".