Antithrombotic treatment beyond 1 year after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Beyond 1 year after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), guidelines recommend anticoagulant monotherapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) rather than dual therapy with an anticoagulant and an antiplatelet drug. The risks and benefits of this strategy, however, remain uncertain. We examined hospitalization for bleeding and ischaemic risk beyond 1 year after PCI in patients with AF treated with monotherapy vs. dual therapy. Furthermore, among patients treated with monotherapy, we compared direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy and vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included all patients with AF undergoing first-time PCI between 2003 and 2017 from the Western Denmark Heart Registry and followed them for up to 4 years. Follow-up started 15 months after PCI to enable assessment of medical treatment after 12 months. Using a Cox regression model, we computed weighted hazard ratios (HRw) of hospitalization for bleeding and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Analyses comparing monotherapy vs. dual therapy included 3331 patients, and analyses comparing DOAC vs. VKA monotherapy included 1275 patients. Risks of hospitalization for bleeding [HRw 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.09] and MACE (HRw 1.04, 95% CI 0.90-1.19) were similar with monotherapy and dual therapy. Similarly, risks of hospitalization for bleeding (HRw 1.27, 95% CI 0.84-1.92) and MACE (HRw 1.15, 95% CI 0.87-1.50) were equal with DOAC and VKA monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Our results support long-term OAC monotherapy beyond 1 year after PCI in patients with atrial fibrillation and suggest that DOAC monotherapy is as safe and effective as VKA monotherapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".