Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in the Dual Antiplatelet Regimen for Intracranial Stenting or Flow-Diverter Treatment for Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysms: A Single-Center Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ticagrelor is a novel P2Y12 antagonist, and little is known about its efficacy and safety in the endovascular treatment of aneurysms. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel for stent-assisted coiling or flow-diversion treatment in patients with unruptured cerebral aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From November 2003 to February 2019, two hundred one patients (mean age, 57.5 years; 156 women) with 233 unruptured aneurysms underwent stent-assisted coiling or flow-diversion treatment. All patients received antiplatelet therapy of aspirin plus clopidogrel (clopidogrel group, 121 patients with 140 aneurysms) or aspirin plus ticagrelor (ticagrelor group, 80 patients with 93 aneurysms). The clinical and radiologic data in each group were retrospectively reviewed and compared. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-six procedures were performed, including stent-assisted coiling ( n = 101) and flow diversion ( n = 135). At 90 days, the primary outcome—a composite of any stroke and death—occurred in 9.9% of the clopidogrel group and 8.6% of the ticagrelor group ( P = .822). Ischemic stroke occurred in 10 (7.0%) of the clopidogrel group and 7 (7.5%) of the ticagrelor group ( P > .999). Disabling stroke occurred in 4 (2.8%) in the clopidogrel group and in 4 (4.3%) in the ticagrelor group ( P = .716). Ninety-day death occurred in 3 (2.1%) in the clopidogrel group and 1 (1.1%) in the ticagrelor group ( P > .999). Any bleeding at 90 days occurred in 13 (9.2%) in the clopidogrel group and 6 (6.5%) in the ticagrelor group ( P = .479). CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor appears to be as effective and safe as clopidogrel in stent-assisted coiling or flow-diversion treatment for unruptured cerebral aneurysms. DAPT : dual antiplatelet therapy
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".