Experiences of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation With Combination Antithrombotic Therapy Post–Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Up to 30% of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have coronary artery disease, and many undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In the setting of acute coronary syndrome with PCI, or high-risk elective PCI, Canadian AF guidelines recommend 1-30 days of acetylsalicylic acid, 1-12 months of clopidogrel, and oral anticoagulation (OAC) with doses that may change throughout the 12 months post-PCI. The complexity of these regimens may contribute to unplanned modifications (UPMs), increasing the risk of thrombosis and/or bleeding. We describe what happens to these patients and their antithrombotic therapy (ATT) after discharge. Methods: Prospective follow-up was conducted of patients with AF requiring OAC who underwent PCI and were discharged on combination ATT. Patients were contacted at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-PCI. Results: Sixty-five patients were enrolled, with data at any time point available for 61 of them (94%). Of these, 44 (68%) experienced at least one UPM to ATT. In total, 105 UPMs occurred. The most common UPM was an extended duration of P2Y12 inhibitor (23 instances; 22%). The most common UPM with acetylsalicylic acid was extended (11 instances; 11%) or shortened (11 instances; 11%) duration. Thirty-nine UPMs (37%) were related to OACs; 9 (23%) were related to warfarin, and 30 (77%) were related to direct OACs. Of all patients with at least one UPM, 33 (75%) experienced bleeding. Conclusions: More than 2 in 3 patients with AF undergoing PCI experienced a UPM to their ATT. This study underscores the challenges of combination ATT for patients and clinicians alike, emphasizing the need for patient support after discharge.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".