| Title |
The clinical outcomes of triple antiplatelet therapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy for high-risk patients after coronary stent implantation: a meta-analysis of 11 clinical trials and 9,553 patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s119616 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhong-Guo Fan, Guo-Bin Ding, Xiao-Bo Li, Xiao-Fei Gao, Ya-Li Gao, Nai-Liang Tian |
| Abstract |
The optimal antiplatelet regimen after in-coronary intervention among patients presenting with complex coronary artery lesions or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has remained unclear. This study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of triple antiplatelet treatment (TAPT) (cilostazol added to aspirin plus clopidogrel) in these patients. The PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and other Internet sources were searched for relevant articles. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis and bleeding were analyzed as the safety end points. Eleven clinical trials involving 9,553 patients were analyzed. The risk of MACE was significantly decreased following TAPT after stent implantation in the ACS subgroup (odds ratio [OR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.85; P<0.001), which might mainly result from the lower risk of all-cause mortality in this subset (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.48-0.80; P<0.001). The risk of bleeding was not increased with respect to TAPT. TAPT after stent implantation was associated with feasible benefits on reducing the risk of MACE, especially on reducing the incidence of all-cause mortality among patients suffering from ACS, without higher incidence of bleeding. Larger and more powerful randomized trials are still warranted to prove the superiority of TAPT for such patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 18 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 41% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 18 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,437
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,465
of 332,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#39
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.