ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Association of blood-activating commercial Chinese polyherbal preparation with clinical outcomes in older patients with ischemic cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases: a real-world cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Commercial Chinese polyherbal preparation for activating blood and resolving stasis (CPABRS) were widely used in combination with guideline-directed antiplatelet agents (AA). However, real-world evidence on the effectiveness and safety of this combination remains limited, particularly among older patients with ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases (ICCD). Method: This retrospective cohort study used data from the Beijing Municipal Medical Insurance Database (BMMID). Patients aged ≥65 years with ICCD were categorized into three groups: AA + CPABRS, CPABRS alone, and AA alone. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and bleeding outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity scores, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the findings. Results: A total of 12,113 patients were included (median age, 77 years); 78.2% received AA + CPABRS, 11.5% received CPABRS alone, and 10.4% received AA alone. Compared with AA alone, AA + CPABRS was associated with a lower risk of MACCEs (OR 0.687, 95% CI 0.544-0.876) without a statistically increase in the risk of bleeding (OR 0.734, 95% CI 0.417-1.399). CPABRS monotherapy was associated with a non-significant reduction in MACCEs (OR 0.820, 95% CI 0.597-1.126) and a numerically higher but imprecise bleeding risk (OR 1.831, 95% CI 0.895-3.866). The Cox, IPTW-propensity scores analysis, subgroup and sensitivity analyses yielded consistent results. Conclusion: In older ICCD patients, adjunctive CPABRS combined with antiplatelet therapy was associated with lower risk of MACCEs without statistically significant increase in bleeding events during short-term follow-up. These findings suggest that CPABRS may be a potentially useful complementary strategy for secondary prevention in this population.
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.