MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk/Benefit Tradeoff of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Early and Late After an Acute Coronary Syndrome or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

2020· article· en· W3013012074 on OpenAlexaff
John H. Alexander, Daniel Wojdyla, Amit N. Vora, Laine Thomas, Christopher B. Granger, Shaun G. Goodman, Ronald Aronson, Stephan Windecker, Roxana Mehran, Renato D. Lópes

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineApixabanAspirinPercutaneous coronary interventionAtrial fibrillationAcute coronary syndromeInternal medicineCardiologyPlaceboRandomizationVitamin K antagonistRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaWarfarinMyocardial infarctionRivaroxaban

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In AUGUSTUS (Open-Label, 2×2 Factorial, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety of Apixaban vs Vitamin K Antagonist and Aspirin vs Aspirin Placebo in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome and/or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent acute coronary syndrome and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention had less bleeding with apixaban than vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and with placebo than aspirin. However, the number of ischemic events was numerically higher with placebo. The aim of this analysis is to assess the tradeoff of risk (bleeding) and benefit (ischemic events) over time with apixaban versus VKA and aspirin versus placebo. METHODS: inhibitor were randomized to blinded aspirin or placebo and to open-label apixaban or VKA for 6 months. In a post hoc analysis, we compared the risk of 3 composite bleeding outcomes and 3 composite ischemic outcomes from randomization through 30 days and from 30 days to 6 months with apixaban and VKA and with aspirin and placebo. RESULTS: Compared with VKA, apixaban had either a lower or a similar risk of bleeding and ischemic outcomes from randomization to 30 days and from 30 days to 6 months. From randomization to 30 days, aspirin caused more severe bleeding (absolute risk difference, 0.97% [95% CI, 0.23-1.70]) and fewer severe ischemic events (absolute risk difference, -0.91% [95% CI, -1.74 to -0.08]) than placebo. From 30 days to 6 months, the risk of severe bleeding was higher with aspirin than placebo (absolute risk difference, 1.25% [95% CI, 0.23-2.27]), whereas the risk of severe ischemic events was similar (absolute risk difference, -0.17% [95% CI, -1.33 to 0.98]). CONCLUSIONS: inhibitor, apixaban is preferred over VKA. Use of aspirin immediately and for up to 30 days results in an equal tradeoff between an increase in severe bleeding and a reduction in severe ischemic events. After 30 days, aspirin continues to increase bleeding without significantly reducing ischemic events. These results inform shared, patient-centric decision making on the ideal duration of the use of aspirin after an acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving oral anticoagulation. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02415400.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations130
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207