↓ Skip to main content

Dual antiplatelet therapy versus single antiplatelet therapy after transaortic valve replacement: Meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Dual antiplatelet therapy versus single antiplatelet therapy after transaortic valve replacement: Meta-analysis
Published in
Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.03.008
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The current guidelines recommend empirical therapy with DAPT of aspirin and clopidogrel for six months after TAVR. This recommendation is based on expert consensus only. Giving the lack of clear consensus on treatment strategy following TAVR. Goal of this meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and safety of mono-antiplatelet therapy (MAPT) versus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We performed a meta-analysis from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective studies that tested DAPT vs. MAPT for all-cause mortality and major bleeding of 603 patients. The primary efficacy outcomes were 30 days mortality and stroke. The primary safety outcomes were major bleeding and major vascular complications. We included 603 patients from 4 studies. The use of MAPT was associated with similar mortality rate (5.9% vs. 6.6%; RR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.49-1.71; P = 0.68) and stroke rate compared with DAPT (1.3% vs. 1.3%; RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.27 to 4.04; P = 0.81). There was no difference in major vascular complication (4.2% vs. 8.9%; RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.23 to 1.18; P = 0.17) or minor vascular complication (4.2% vs. 7.3%; RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.34; P = 0.14). However, MAPT was associated with significantly less risk of major bleeding (4.9% vs. 14.5%; RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.70; P < 0.01) but no difference in minor bleeding (4.2% vs. 3.6%; RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.43 to 3.10; P = 0.85). MAPT use after TAVR is associated with lower rates of major bleeding compared with DAPT with no significant difference in mortality, stroke or vascular complications.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 14 50%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Unknown 17 61%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 12 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,063,016
of 27,407,869 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine
#268
of 1,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,583
of 356,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine
#10
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,407,869 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,521 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
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 356,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.