ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Efficacy and safety of indobufen- versus aspirin-based dual antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Indobufen is a potential alternative to aspirin in dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimens after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) due to its superior safety profile and comparable efficacy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of indobufen-based DAPT versus aspirin-based DAPT following PCI. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov using MeSH terms and keywords related to "Percutaneous Coronary Intervention," "Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors," and "Aspirin," from inception to March 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies assessing indobufen post-PCI were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method in RevMan to pool risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Six studies comprising 13 044 patients were included. Indobufen use significantly reduced Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2 bleeding (RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.97), BARC type 2, 3, and 5 bleeding (RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.90), and gastrointestinal adverse events (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.51-0.80). No significant differences were observed between both groups for cardiac death (RR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.72-2.12), myocardial infarction (RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.52-1.64), ischemic stroke (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.58-1.39), stent thrombosis (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.45-2.82), and BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.57-1.22). Conclusion: Indobufen demonstrates comparable antiplatelet efficacy to aspirin while improving safety. Further large-scale, high-quality RCTs are warranted to solidify evidence and inform future guidelines, particularly to assess the role of indobufen in patients at high bleeding risk.
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.