Why the study?
Does receptor blocker therapy after PCI in a more recent cohort (Cohort-3) compared to an older cohort (Cohort-2) alter bleeding risk and ischemic outcomes?
Cohort (n=25,419)
Yes
Does receptor blocker therapy after PCI in a more recent cohort (Cohort-3) compared to an older cohort (Cohort-2) alter bleeding risk and ischemic outcomes?
In a Japanese registry of patients undergoing PCI, a more recent cohort demonstrated a significantly higher bleeding risk compared to an older cohort, without a corresponding reduction in myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Higher bleeding without ischemic benefit post-PCI; leaves open optimal receptor blocker selection in practice.
BACKGROUND: receptor blocker therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in real-world clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: receptor blocker, the higher bleeding risk in Cohort-3 relative to Cohort-2 remained significant (hazard ratio (HR): 1.52 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37-1.68, P<0.0001). Cohort-3 compared with Cohort-2 was not associated with lower adjusted risk for myocardial infarction/ischemic stroke (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.87-1.06, P=0.44). CONCLUSIONS: receptor blockers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Natsuaki et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (n=25,419). Recent PCI practice (Cohort-3, 2011-2013) vs. Historical PCI practice (Cohort-2, 2005-2007) was evaluated on GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding at 3 years (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.37-1.68, p=<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: