Impact of reduced-dose prasugrel vs. standard-dose clopidogrel on in-hospital outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in 62 737 patients with acute coronary syndromes: a nationwide registry study in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In Japan, reduced-dose prasugrel (loading/maintenance dose, 20/3.75 mg) has been approved for use in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), because of the higher bleeding risk among East Asians. However, its safety in the real-world population has not been investigated. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of reduced-dose prasugrel vs. standard-dose clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Acute coronary syndrome patients who underwent PCI in 2016, who were treated with either reduced-dose prasugrel or standard-dose clopidogrel in addition to aspirin, were identified from the nationwide Japanese PCI registry. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality following PCI. Secondary outcomes included stent thrombosis and bleeding complication after PCI. Among 62 737 ACS patients who underwent PCI at any of 986 participating centres across Japan (clopidogrel 31.9%; prasugrel 68.1%), we identified 12 016 propensity score-matched pairs (24 032 patients; age 69.4 ± 12.2 years; female 24.9%; ST-elevation myocardial infarction 42.3%). Compared with standard-dose clopidogrel, reduced-dose prasugrel was associated with increased risk of bleeding [odds ratio (OR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-2.51; P = 0.016], but both had similar rates of mortality (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89-1.38; P = 0.371) and stent thrombosis (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73-2.30; P = 0.387) as well as similar falsification endpoints of cardiac tamponade and emergent operation. CONCLUSION: In Japanese ACS patients undergoing PCI, the risk of bleeding is higher when using reduced-dose prasugrel than when using standard-dose clopidogrel, but there is no significant difference in in-hospital mortality and incidence of stent thrombosis between the two antiplatelet regimens.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".