Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,815

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Clinical Trial Comparing Three Antithrombotic-Drug Regimens after Coronary-Artery Stenting

Open access
Leon, Martin B., Baim, Donald S., Popma, Jeffrey J., Gordon, Paul C., Cutlip, Donald E., Ho, Kalon K.L., Giambartolomei, Alex, Diver, Daniel J., Lasorda, David M., Williams, David O., Pocock, Stuart J., Kuntz, Richard E.·1998·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic drugs are used after coronary-artery stenting to prevent stent thrombosis. We compared the efficacy and safety of three antithrombotic-drug regimens - aspirin alone, aspirin and warfarin, and aspirin and ticlopidine - after coronary stenting. METHODS: Of 1965 patients who underwent coronary stenting at 50 centers, 1653 (84.1 percent) met angiographic criteria for successful placement of the stent and were randomly assigned to one of three regimens: aspirin alone (557 patients), aspirin and warfarin (550 patients), or aspirin and ticlopidine (546 patients). All clinical events reflecting stent thrombosis were included in the prespecified primary end point: death, revascularization of the target lesion, angiographically evident thrombosis, or myocardial infarction within 30 days. RESULTS: The primary end point was observed in 38 patients: 20 (3.6 percent) assigned to receive aspirin alone, 15 (2.7 percent) assigned to receive aspirin and warfarin, and 3 (0.5 percent) assigned to receive aspirin and ticlopidine (P=0.001 for the comparison of all three groups). Hemorrhagic complications occurred in 10 patients (1.8 percent) who received aspirin alone, 34 (6.2 percent) who received aspirin and warfarin, and 30 (5.5 percent) who received aspirin and ticlopidine (P<0.001 for the comparison of all three groups); the incidence of vascular surgical complications was 0.4 percent (2 patients), 2.0 percent (11 patients), and 2.0 percent (11 patients), respectively (P=0.01). There were no significant differences in the incidence of neutropenia or thrombocytopenia (overall incidence, 0.3 percent) among the three treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with aspirin alone and a combination of aspirin and warfarin, treatment with aspirin and ticlopidine resulted in a lower rate of stent thrombosis, although there were more hemorrhagic complications than with aspirin alone. After coronary stenting, aspirin and ticlopidine should be considered for the prevention of the serious complication of stent thrombosis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199812033392303

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,815

Metadata

Authors
Leon, M. B., Baim, D. S., Popma, J. J., Gordon, P. C., Cutlip, D. E., Ho, K. K. L., Giambartolomei, A., Diver, D. J., Lasorda, D. M., Williams, D. O., Pocock, S. J., & Kuntz, R. E.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1998-12-03
Volume
339
Issue
23
Pages
1665-1671
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2327850977
Cited by
1,815
References
0
FWCI
59.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Clinical Trial Comparing Three Antithrombotic-Drug Regimens after Coronary-Artery Stenting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199812033392303
The paper
Leon, M. B., Baim, D. S., Popma, J. J., Gordon, P. C., Cutlip, D. E., Ho, K. K. L., Giambartolomei, A., Diver, D. J., Lasorda, D. M., Williams, D. O., Pocock, S. J., & Kuntz, R. E. (1998). A Clinical Trial Comparing Three Antithrombotic-Drug Regimens after Coronary-Artery Stenting. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199812033392303

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.