ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Multicenter retrospective cohort study demonstrates superior safety profile of indobufen over aspirin for Post-CABG antiplatelet therapy.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the Effects of Indobufen and Aspirin in Older Patients with Coronary Artery Disease After Coronary Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: A Prospective Randomized Single-Center Study.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisTrial
- Safety and Efficacy of Aspirin and Indobufen in the Treatment of Atherosclerotic Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Comparative effectiveness and pharmacological fingerprints of indobufen versus rivaroxaban in patients with chronic kidney disease: a single-center, real-world study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is essential for treating coronary artery disease, with postoperative aspirin crucial to prevent graft restenosis. However, its gastrointestinal side effects may limit tolerability in some patients. Indobufen presents a potential alternative, but its safety and efficacy need further validation. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of indobufen Methods: This retrospective observational study included 39 patients who underwent CABG at two centers from January to December 2023. Patients were retrospectively assigned to two groups based on the antiplatelet therapy they received: the indobufen group (n = 19) and the aspirin group (n = 20). The primary endpoint was a composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization due to acute coronary syndrome in the intention-to-treat population. Postoperative data on platelet count, hemoglobin, D-dimer, activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), and hospital stay length were collected. Transfusion rate, bleeding, thrombotic events, and gastrointestinal adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Results: Over the 8-to-18-month follow-up period, 5 patients (25%) in the aspirin group reached the primary endpoint, while none in the indobufen group did, a difference that was statistically significant ( Conclusion: Indobufen demonstrates a comparable antiplatelet effect to aspirin and offers significant advantages in reducing gastrointestinal adverse reactions and bleeding risk. It can be considered a preferable alternative for patients who cannot tolerate or have contraindications to aspirin. Further large-scale clinical trials are needed to confirm its potential as the first-choice antiplatelet therapy post-CABG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.