↓ Skip to main content

Perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery following coronary stent placement: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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.
Title
Perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery following coronary stent placement: a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0635-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher P. Childers, Melinda Maggard-Gibbons, Jesus G. Ulloa, Ian T. MacQueen, Isomi M. Miake-Lye, Roberta Shanman, Selene Mak, Jessica M. Beroes, Paul G. Shekelle

Abstract

The correct perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (NCS) is often debated by clinicians. American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines recommend postponing elective NCS at least 3 months after stent implantation. Regardless of the timing of surgery, ACC/AHA guidelines recommend continuing at least ASA throughout the perioperative period and ideally continuing dual APT (DAPT) therapy "unless surgery demands discontinuation." The objective of this review was to ascertain the risks and benefits of APT in the perioperative period, to assess how these risks and benefits vary by APT management, and the significance of length of time since stent implantation before operative intervention. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception through October 2017. Articles were included if patients were post PCI with stent placement (bare metal [BMS] or drug eluting [DES]), underwent elective NCS, and had rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or bleeding events associated with pre and perioperative APT therapy. Of 4882 screened articles, we included 16 studies in the review (1 randomized controlled trial and 15 observational studies). Studies were small (< 50: n = 5, 51-150: n = 5, >150: n = 6). All studies included DES with 7 of 16 also including BMS. Average time from stent to NCS was variable (< 6 months: n = 3, 6-12 months: n = 1, > 12 months: n = 6). At least six different APT strategies were described. Six studies further utilized bridging protocols using three different pharmacologic agents. Studies typically included multiple surgical fields with varying degrees of invasiveness. Across all APT strategies, rates of MACE/bleeding ranged from 0 to 21% and 0 to 22%. There was no visible trend in MACE/bleeding rates within a given APT strategy. Stratifying the articles by type of surgery, timing of discontinuation of APT therapy, bridging vs. no bridging, and time since stent placement did not help explain the heterogeneity. Evidence regarding perioperative APT management in patients with cardiac stents undergoing NCS is insufficient to guide practice. Other clinical factors may have a greater impact than perioperative APT management on MACE and bleeding events. PROSPERO CRD42016036607.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Student > Master 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 38 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 40 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 27 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,710,862
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#703
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,009
of 443,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#29
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 443,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.