BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2018
Adverse clinical outcomes associated with double dose clopidogrel compared to the other antiplatelet regimens in patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhuo Xiaojun, Zhuo Bi, Ouyang Shenyu, Niu Pei, Xiao Mou
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Recently, several newer antiplatelet treatment strategies have been used in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Apart from the dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin and clopidogrel, double dose clopidogrel (DDC), triple antiplatelet therapy (TAPT) consisting of aspirin, clopidogrel and cilostazol and other newer antiplatelet agents have shown to be effective in different ways. In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the adverse clinical outcomes and the bleeding events which were observed when DDC was compared to the other antiplatelet regimens in patients with CAD.
METHODS: English publications comparing DDC with other antiplatelet regimens were searched from MEDLARS/MEDLINE, EMBASE, www.ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar. Adverse cardiovascular outcomes and bleeding events were the study endpoints. Statistical analysis was carried out by the RevMan 5.3 software whereby odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS: A total number of 23,065 participants were included. Results of this analysis showed major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, cardiac death, stroke, stent thrombosis, revascularization and myocardial infarction (MI) to have been similarly manifested in patients who were treated with DDC versus the control group with OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.78-1.22; p = 0.83, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.77-1.17; p = 0.62, OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79-1.20; p = 0.81, OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.65-1.48; p = 0.94, OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.40-1.75; p = 0.64, OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.52-1.49; p = 0.63, and OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65-1.21; p = 0.45 respectively. Any minor and major bleedings were also similarly manifested. When DDC was compared to DAPT, no significant difference was observed in any bleeding event with OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 0.86-2.91; p = 0.14. Even when DDC was compared with either ticagrelor or prasugrel or TAPT, still no significant difference was observed in terms of bleeding outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CAD, adverse clinical outcomes were not significantly different when DDC was compared to the other antiplatelet regimens. In addition, bleeding events were also similarly manifested when DDC was compared to DAPT, TAPT or ticagrelor/prasugrel.
METHODS: English publications comparing DDC with other antiplatelet regimens were searched from MEDLARS/MEDLINE, EMBASE, www.ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar. Adverse cardiovascular outcomes and bleeding events were the study endpoints. Statistical analysis was carried out by the RevMan 5.3 software whereby odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS: A total number of 23,065 participants were included. Results of this analysis showed major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, cardiac death, stroke, stent thrombosis, revascularization and myocardial infarction (MI) to have been similarly manifested in patients who were treated with DDC versus the control group with OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.78-1.22; p = 0.83, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.77-1.17; p = 0.62, OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79-1.20; p = 0.81, OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.65-1.48; p = 0.94, OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.40-1.75; p = 0.64, OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.52-1.49; p = 0.63, and OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65-1.21; p = 0.45 respectively. Any minor and major bleedings were also similarly manifested. When DDC was compared to DAPT, no significant difference was observed in any bleeding event with OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 0.86-2.91; p = 0.14. Even when DDC was compared with either ticagrelor or prasugrel or TAPT, still no significant difference was observed in terms of bleeding outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CAD, adverse clinical outcomes were not significantly different when DDC was compared to the other antiplatelet regimens. In addition, bleeding events were also similarly manifested when DDC was compared to DAPT, TAPT or ticagrelor/prasugrel.