SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Comparison of P2Y12 inhibitors and aspirin in secondary prevention of coronary events: a meta-analysis of RCTs.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Knowledge domain and evolutionary trends of P2Y receptors in cardiovascular diseases: a bibliometric and altmetric analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of P2YArchives of medical sciences. Atherosclerotic diseases · 2026Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Clopidogrel Versus Aspirin Monotherapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2026Article
- Advances in the Clinical Use of Clopidogrel: A Review of Individualized Treatment Strategies and Monitoring Optimization Based on Genetic Polymorphisms.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2025Review
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
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of P2Y12 inhibitors versus aspirin monotherapy for secondary prevention in patients with coronary heart disease (CAD), providing evidence for clinical decision-making.
methodsFollowing the PRISMA and AMSTAR2 guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing P2Y12 inhibitors and aspirin monotherapy in CAD patients. The inclusion criteria focused on RCTs comparing P2Y12 inhibitors (clopidogrel, ticagrelor, and prasugrel) with aspirin. Studies that were non-randomized, did not focus on monotherapies with these agents, involved patients under 18 years old, or included non-CAD patients were excluded. The primary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, while secondary outcomes comprised gastrointestinal complications, major bleeding, and mortality. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. A random-effects model was applied to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings.
resultsA total of 31,956 patients were included in the meta-analysis. P2Y12 inhibitors significantly reduced the risk of myocardial infarction (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.89, I² = 0%, P < 0.001) and hemorrhagic stroke risk (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.92, I² = 20.2%, P = 0.025). No statistically significant difference was observed in major bleeding (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.30, I² = 63.8%, P = 0.814) or all-cause mortality (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.15, I² = 30.3%, P = 0.877). Heterogeneity was assessed, and sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the primary findings.
conclusionsCompared with aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors reduce risk of myocardial infarction and hemorrhagic stroke in the secondary prevention of CAD. However, there is no significant differences in major bleeding or all-cause mortality. Further research, including subgroup analyses and studies in diverse populations, is needed to validate these findings and explore genetic factors that may influence treatment outcomes.
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.