Dabigatran Dual Therapy vs Warfarin Triple Therapy Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation With/Without a Proton Pump Inhibitor: A Pre-Specified Analysis of the RE-DUAL PCI Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In patients with atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention, if a proton pump inhibitor is used, could that allow the use of warfarin triple therapy, or is there additional reduction in bleeding while using it with dual therapy? METHODS: The RE-DUAL PCI trial randomized 2725 patients with atrial fibrillation post-percutaneous coronary intervention to dabigatran dual therapy (110 or 150 mg twice daily, with clopidogrel or ticagrelor) or warfarin triple therapy (with clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and aspirin for 1-3 months). This prespecified subgroup analysis evaluated risks of a first major bleeding event or clinically relevant non-major bleeding event, all gastrointestinal bleeding, and a composite efficacy endpoint of all-cause mortality/thromboembolic event or unplanned revascularization according to baseline use of a proton pump inhibitor. RESULTS: Of 2678 analyzed patients, 1641 (61.3%) were receiving a proton pump inhibitor at baseline. Dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy reduced the risk of major bleeding events or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events vs warfarin triple therapy regardless of proton pump inhibitor use, with comparable risk of the composite efficacy endpoint (all interaction p values > 0.05). For gastrointestinal bleeding, no interaction was observed between study treatment and proton pump inhibitor use (interaction p values 0.84 and 0.62 for dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy, respectively, vs warfarin triple therapy). CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy reduced the risk of major bleeding events or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events vs warfarin triple therapy, regardless of proton pump inhibitor use at baseline, in patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Risk of the composite efficacy endpoint appeared to be similar for dabigatran dual therapy vs warfarin triple therapy in patients receiving/not receiving a proton pump inhibitor. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: NCT02164864.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".