One-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in High Bleeding Risk Asian Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ― Onyx ONE Clear 2-Year Results ―
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) is safe and effective. Asian patients have a unique ischemia/bleeding risk profile. Here, we compare the outcomes between Asian and non-Asian patients after PCI and 1-month DAPT. Methods and Results: Onyx ONE Clear was a prospective, multicenter study enrolling HBR patients undergoing PCI with the Resolute Onyx ZES (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03647475). Event-free patients after 1-month DAPT transitioned to single antiplatelet therapy. Clinical outcomes between 1 month and 2 years were compared between patients from Asian and non-Asian countries after 1 : 1 propensity score matching accounting for baseline differences. Patients from Asian countries represented 18% (n=273) of the study group (n=1,507). Non-Asian patients had greater clinical complexity; however, these differences were minimal after matching. There were no significant differences in ischemic outcomes between matched cohorts from 1 month to 2 years, including the primary composite endpoint of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (12% vs. 12%; P>0.99). However, there were significantly fewer Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3-5 bleeding events in the Asian vs. non-Asian cohort (4% vs. 9%; P=0.007), despite similar bleeding risk profiles after matching. Conclusions: After propensity score matching, HBR patients from Asian countries undergoing PCI treated with 1-month DAPT had similar ischemic outcomes but fewer bleeding events between 1 month and 2 years compared with patients from non-Asian countries.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".