The effect of antiplatelet therapy on survival and cardiac allograft vasculopathy following heart transplantation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is mediated by endothelial inflammation, platelet activation and thrombosis. Antiplatelet therapy may prevent the development of CAV. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes and appraises the evidence on the effect of antiplatelet therapy after heart transplantation (HT). CENTRAL(Ovid), MEDLINE(Ovid), Embase(Ovid) were searched from inception until April 30, 2020. Outcomes included CAV, all-cause mortality, and CAV-related mortality. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Seven observational studies including 2023 patients, mean age 52 years, 22% female, 47% with ischemic cardiomyopathy followed over a mean 7.1 years proved eligible. All studies compared acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) to no treatment and were at serious risk of bias. Data from 1911 patients in 6 studies were pooled in the meta-analyses. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ASA on all-cause or CAV-related mortality. ASA may reduce the development of CAV (RR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.44-1.29) based on very low certainty evidence. Two studies that conducted propensity-weighted analyses showed further reduction in CAV with ASA (HR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.13-0.74). In conclusion, there is limited evidence that ASA may reduce the development of CAV. Definitive resolution of the impact of antiplatelet therapy on CAV and mortality will require randomized clinical trials.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".