When is the optimal time to discontinue clopidogrel before in‐hospital coronary bypass surgery? A closer look at the current literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clopidogrel and other P2Y12 inhibitors have become the standard of care among patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes. A substantial proportion of these patients require surgical revascularization during index hospitalization. HYPOTHESIS: Guidelines recommend a 5-day waiting period off clopidogrel before coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to reduce hemorrhagic complications. These recommendations are not routinely followed in clinical practice, while recent studies also propose shorter waiting periods off clopidogrel for patients awaiting in-hospital CABG. METHODS: A preliminary PubMed search was conducted using the following MeSH terms under the publication type "Hemorrhage:" "Clopidogrel," AND "Coronary Artery Bypass." Relevant studies and guidelines were then reviewed and selected based on a predetermined criteria. Studies that formulated the current recommendations for stopping clopidogrel preoperative to CABG are discussed in detail this review. RESULTS: A comprehensive review of recent evidence illustrates mixed bleeding and transfusion outcomes among CABG patients with preoperative exposure to clopidogrel in less than 5 days. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal discontinuation time of clopidogrel before CABG is still poorly defined. The recommendation of a 5-day washout period for clopidogrel should be reconsidered to be on par with current clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".