MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094217864 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa670

Ticagrelor alone vs. ticagrelor plus aspirin following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: TWILIGHT-ACS

2020· article· en· W3094217864 on OpenAlexaff
Usman Baber, George Dangas, Dominick J. Angiolillo, David J. Cohen, Samin K. Sharma, Johny Nicolas, Carlo Briguori, Jin Yu, Timothy Collier, Dariusz Dudek, Vladimír Džavík, Javier Escaned, Robert Gil, Paul A. Gurbel, Christian W. Hamm, Timothy D. Henry, Kurt Huber, Adnan Kastrati, Upendra Kaul, Ran Kornowski, Mitchell W. Krucoff, Vijay Kunadian, Steven O. Marx, Shamir R. Mehta, David J. Moliterno, E. Magnus Ohman, Keith G. Oldroyd, Gennaro Sardella, Samantha Sartori, Richard Shlofmitz, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Giora Weisz, Bernhard Witzenbichler, Yaling Han, Stuart Pocock, C. Michael Gibson, Roxana Mehran

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesUniversity Health Network
FundersBritish Heart FoundationAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineTicagrelorPercutaneous coronary interventionAspirinInternal medicineAcute coronary syndromeMyocardial infarctionCardiologyHazard ratioConventional PCIStroke (engine)Confidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy on clinically relevant bleeding and major ischaemic events in relation to clinical presentation with and without non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a pre-specified subgroup analysis of The Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention (TWILIGHT) trial, which enrolled 9006 patients with high-risk features undergoing PCI with DES. After 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor plus aspirin, 7119 adherent and event-free patients were randomized in a double-blind manner to ticagrelor plus placebo versus ticagrelor plus aspirin for 12 months. The primary outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding while the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke was the key secondary outcome. Among patients with NSTE-ACS (n = 4614), ticagrelor monotherapy reduced BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding by 53% [3.6% vs. 7.6%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.61; P < 0.001) and in stable patients (n = 2503) by 24% (4.8% vs. 6.2%; HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.54-1.06; P = 0.11; nominal Pint = 0.03). Rates of all-cause death, MI, or stroke among those with (4.3% vs. 4.4%; HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74-1.28; P = 0.84) and without (3.1% vs. 3.2%; HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.61-1.49; P = 0.85) NSTE-ACS were similar between treatment arms irrespective of clinical presentation (Pint = 0.96). CONCLUSION: Among patients with or without NSTE-ACS who have completed an initial 3-month course of DAPT following PCI with DES, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced clinically meaningful bleeding events without increasing ischaemic risk as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. The benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy with respect to bleeding events were more pronounced in patients with NSTE-ACS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02270242.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

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

Citations176
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207