Trial-Results center  
Clinical trial results database in cardiology Feedback    Home

Systematic review and meta-analysis

This trial is included in the following systematic reviews and meta-analyses:

percutaneous coronary intervention - antithrombotics - all type of patients


Related trials

ATOLL, 2010 - enoxaparin vs standard heparin

TRA-PCI, 2009 - SCH 530348 vs placebo

NAPLES (Tavano), 2009 - bivalirudin vs actionated heparin plus tirofiban

CHAMPION-PCI, 2009 - cangrelor up front vs clopidogrel up front

CHAMPION-PLATFORM, 2009 - cangrelor up front vs delayed clopidogrel

ISAR-REACT 3, 2008 - bivalirudin vs UFH

HORIZONS-AMI (Stone), 2008 - bivalirudin vs heparin + GP2b3a inhibitors

STEEPLE, 2006 - enoxaparin vs UFH

ACUITY (Stone) (bivalirudin alone), 2006 - bivalirudin vs heparin + GP2b3a inhibitors

JUMBO-TIMI 26, 2005 - prasugrel vs clopidogrel

REPLACE-1, 2004 - bivalirudin vs UFH

Natarajan (without antiGp2b3a), 2003 - Dalteparin vs UFH

REPLACE-2, 2003 - bivalirudin vs hepatin + anti Gp2b3a

CRUISE, 2003 - Enoxaparin vs UFH

Natarajan (+ antiGp2b3a), 2003 - Dalteparin vs UFH + anti Gp2b3a

Petronio, 2002 - Abciximab vs placebo

Tamburino, 2002 - Abciximab vs placebo

Kleiman, 2002 - bivalirudin + eptifibatide vs heparin + eptifibatide

CADILLAC, 2002 - Abciximab vs placebo

Galeote, 2001 - Enoxaparin vs UFH

Drozd, 2001 - Enoxaparin vs UFH

Kini, 2001 - Abciximab vs placebo

Dubek b (+abciximal), 2001 - Enoxaparin+abciximab vs UFH

ADMIRAL, 2001 - Abciximab vs placebo

ESPRIT, 2000 - Eptifibatide vs placebo



See also:

  • All percutaneous coronary intervention clinical trials
  • All clinical trials of antithrombotics
  • All clinical trials of aspirin + dipyridamol
    		•  

    White (aspirin+dipiridamol) study, 1991

    download pdf: aspirin + dipyridamol | antithrombotics for percutaneous coronary intervention

    Treatments

    Studied treatment ticlopidine 500, aspirin 650 + D225
    Control treatment

    Patients

    Method and design

    Randomized effectives 245 / 254 (studied vs. control)
    Design Parallel groups
    Follow-up duration 6m


    Results

    Endpoint Studied treat.
    n/N     Control treat.
    n/N     Graph RR [95% CI]

    Non fatal stroke

    0 / 245
         1 / 254
         classic 0,21 [0,00;15,14]

    Vascular events

    16 / 245
         12 / 254
         classic 1,38 [0,67;2,86]

    Non fatal MI

    14 / 245
         10 / 254
         classic 1,45 [0,66;3,21]

    Vascular death

    2 / 245
         1 / 254
         classic 2,07 [0,19;22,72]

    Non vascular death

    0 2 1.0

    Relative risks
    Endpoint Events (%) Relative Risk 95% CI Endpoint definition
    in the trial    		 Ref
    Studied treat. Control treat.
    Non fatal stroke 0 / 245 (0,2%) 1 / 254 (0,4%) 0,52 [0,02;15,38]
    Vascular events 16 / 245 (6,5%) 12 / 254 (4,7%) 1,38 [0,67;2,86]
    Non fatal MI 14 / 245 (5,7%) 10 / 254 (3,9%) 1,45 [0,66;3,21]
    Vascular death 2 / 245 (0,8%) 1 / 254 (0,4%) 2,07 [0,19;22,72]
    The primary endpoint (if exists) appears in blod characters
    Reference(s) used for data extraction:

    Endpoint studied treat. control treat. mean diff

    Absolute risk reduction
    Endpoint Events rate Absolute risk
    reduction (ARR)
    Studied treat. Control treat.
    Vascular events 6,53% 4,72% 1,8%
    Non fatal MI 5,71% 3,94% 1,8%
    Vascular death 8,16‰ 3,94‰ 4,2‰

    Meta-analysis of all similar trials:

    antithrombotics in percutaneous coronary intervention for all type of patients



    Reference(s)

    Trials register # NA
    • White CW, Chaitman B, Knudtson ML, Chisholm RJ, and the Ticlopidine Study Group.. Antiplatelet agents are effective in reducing the acute ischemic complications of angioplasty but do not prevent restenosis: results from the ticlopidine trial. Coronary Artery Dis 1991;2:757-67
      Pubmed | Hubmed | Fulltext

    (c) 2004-2011 TrialResults-center - All Rights Reserved

    Tweet this  |  Facebook  |  notify a friend