MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256049686 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003464

Antiplatelet and anticoagulation for patients with prosthetic heart valves

2003· review· en· W4256049686 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen H. Little, David Massel

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalAspirinCochrane LibraryNumber needed to harmMeta-analysisAdverse effectRelative riskDipyridamoleInternal medicineClopidogrelRandomized controlled trialMEDLINESurgeryNumber needed to treat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with prosthetic heart valves are at increased risk for valve thrombosis and arterial thromboembolism. Oral anticoagulation alone, or the addition of antiplatelet drugs, has been used to minimize this risk. An important issue is the effectiveness and safety of the latter strategy. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of adding antiplatelet therapy to standard oral anticoagulation among patients with prosthetic heart valves. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2002), EMBASE (January 1988 to July 2001) and reference lists of individual reports, review articles, meta-analyses, and consensus statements. SELECTION CRITERIA: All reports of randomised controlled trials comparing standard dose oral anticoagulation to standard dose oral anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in patients with one or more prosthetic heart valves. We included reports published in any language or in abstract form. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently performed the search strategy, assessed trials for inclusion criteria, study quality, and extracted data. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 2,428 subjects met the inclusion criteria. Year of publication ranged from 1971 to 2000. Compared with anticoagulation alone, the addition of an antiplatelet agent reduced the risk of thromboembolic events (odds ratio 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.56; p<0.00001)) and total mortality (odds ratio 0.55 (95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.77; p=0.0003)). Aspirin and dipyridamole reduced these events similarly. The risk of major bleeding was increased when antiplatelet agents were added to oral anticoagulants (odds ratio 1.66 (95% confidence interval 1.18 to 2.34; p=0.003)). For major bleeding, there was no evidence of heterogeneity between aspirin and dipyridamole and in the comparison of trials performed before and after 1990, around the time when anticoagulation standardization with the international normalized ratio was being implemented. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Adding antiplatelet therapy, either dipyridamole or low-dose aspirin, to oral anticoagulation decreases the risk of systemic embolism or death among patients with prosthetic heart valves. The risk of major bleeding is increased with antiplatelet therapy. These results apply to patients with mechanical prosthetic valves or those with biological valves and indicators of high risk such as atrial fibrillation or prior thromboembolic events. The effectiveness and safety of low dose aspirin (100 mg daily) appears to be similar to higher dose aspirin and dipyridamole.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations53
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207