Ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and high ischaemic risk: a post hoc analysis of the TWILIGHT trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by ticagrelor monotherapy may be a valuable therapeutic option for patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) and high ischaemic risk (HIR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). AIMS: We aimed to compare ticagrelor monotherapy with ticagrelor-based DAPT in CCS patients with and without HIR undergoing PCI. METHODS: The present analysis included the CCS cohort of the TWILIGHT trial, which randomised PCI patients to ticagrelor alone or in combination with aspirin for 12 months after 3 months of ticagrelor-based DAPT. Patients were stratified into HIR and non-HIR based on the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) CCS guidelines definition. Outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction or stroke, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) Type 2-5 bleeding at 1 year. RESULTS: =0.684) in both the HIR and non-HIR groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a post hoc analysis of the TWILIGHT trial that included CCS patients undergoing PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT appeared to be safe and was not associated with increased risks of ischaemic or bleeding events, regardless of baseline HIR status, compared with standard ticagrelor-based DAPT. These findings suggest the potential to expand guideline recommendations for ticagrelor monotherapy in CCS.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".