MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166286424 · doi:10.1093/ehjcvp/pvab044

Antiplatelet therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

2021· review· en· W3166286424 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander P. Benz, Isabelle Johansson, Willem J.M. Dewilde, Renato D. Lópes, Roxana Mehran, Samantha Sartori, Nikolaus Sarafoff, Satoshi Yasuda, Jeff S. Healey, Ashkan Shoamanesh, John W. Eikelboom, Stuart J. Connolly

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDeutsche HerzstiftungStockholms Läns LandstingHjärt-Lungfonden
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationRandomized controlled trialMedicineMeta-analysisInternal medicineCardiologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The aim of this study was to systematically assess the effects of antiplatelets on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), treated and not-treated with oral anticoagulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception until September 2020. From 5446 citations, we selected randomized trials allocating patients with AF to antiplatelet therapy vs. control. We applied random-effects models for meta-analysis and assessed potential effect modification with background anticoagulation use. Eighteen trials including 21 518 participants met our prespecified eligibility criteria. In 10 studies without background anticoagulation, antiplatelets reduced all-cause stroke [486/6165 (events/patients) vs. 621/6061; risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.86, I2 = 0%]. In eight studies with background anticoagulation, there was a signal for an increase in all-cause stroke with antiplatelets (97/4608 vs. 72/4684; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.98-1.79, I2 = 0%, P-value for interaction <0.001). A similar pattern emerged for ischaemic stroke. Irrespective of background anticoagulation use, antiplatelets increased major bleeding (509/10 402 vs. 328/10 496; RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.35-1.77, I2 = 0%) and intracranial haemorrhage (107/10 221 vs. 65/10 232; RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20-2.24, I2 = 0%), and reduced myocardial infarction (201/9679 vs. 260/9751; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.94, I2 = 0%, all P-values for interaction ≥0.36). Antiplatelets did not affect mortality (1221/10 299 vs. 1211/10 287; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89-1.17, I2 = 29%, P-value for interaction = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AF not receiving oral anticoagulation, antiplatelet therapy modestly reduced stroke. There was a corresponding signal for harm when used on top of anticoagulation. Irrespective of background anticoagulation use, antiplatelet therapy significantly increased bleeding, moderately reduced myocardial infarction, and did not affect mortality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.034
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular PharmacotherapySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207