Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 534

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dabigatran vs. placebo in patients with acute coronary syndromes on dual antiplatelet therapy: a randomized, double-blind, phase II trial

Open access
Oldgren, J., Budaj, A., Granger, C. B., Khder, Y., Roberts, J., Siegbahn, A., Tijssen, J. G. P., Van de Werf, F., Wallentin, L., for the RE-DEEM Investigators·2011·European Heart Journal

Abstract

AIM: After an acute coronary syndrome, patients remain at risk of recurrent ischaemic events, despite contemporary treatment, including aspirin and clopidogrel. We evaluated the safety and indicators of efficacy of the novel oral direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation trial, 1861 patients (99.2% on dual antiplatelet treatment) in 161 centres were enrolled at mean 7.5 days (SD 3.8) after an ST-elevation (60%) or non-ST-elevation (40%) myocardial infarction and randomized to twice daily treatment with dabigatran 50 mg (n = 369), 75 mg (n = 368), 110 mg (n = 406), 150 mg (n = 347), or placebo (n = 371). Primary outcome was the composite of major or clinically relevant minor bleeding during the 6-month treatment period. There were 96 primary outcome events and, compared with placebo, a dose-dependent increase with dabigatran, hazard ratio (HR) 1.77 (95% confidence intervals 0.70, 4.50) for 50 mg; HR 2.17 (0.88, 5.31) for 75 mg; HR 3.92 (1.72, 8.95) for 110 mg; and HR 4.27 (1.86, 9.81) for 150 mg. Compared with placebo, D-dimer concentrations were reduced in all dabigatran dose groups by an average of 37 and 45% at weeks 1 and 4, respectively (P< 0.001). Fourteen (3.8%) patients died, had a myocardial infarction or stroke in the placebo group compared with 17 (4.6%) in 50 mg, 18 (4.9%) in 75 mg, 12 (3.0%) in 110 mg, and 12 (3.5%) in the 150 mg dabigatran groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran, in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy, was associated with a dose-dependent increase in bleeding events and significantly reduced coagulation activity in patients with a recent myocardial infarction.

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 · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr113

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 534

Metadata

Authors
Oldgren, J., Budaj, A., Granger, C. B., Khder, Y., Roberts, J., Siegbahn, A., Tijssen, J. G. P., Van de Werf, F., Wallentin, L., & for the RE-DEEM Investigators
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2011-05-07
Volume
32
Issue
22
Pages
2781-2789
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2098837786
Cited by
534
References
4
FWCI
46.14
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: Dabigatran vs. placebo in patients with acute coronary syndromes on dual antiplatelet therapy: a randomized, double-blind, phase II trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehr113
The paper
Oldgren, J., Budaj, A., Granger, C. B., Khder, Y., Roberts, J., Siegbahn, A., Tijssen, J. G. P., Van de Werf, F., Wallentin, L., & for the RE-DEEM Investigators. (2011). Dabigatran vs. placebo in patients with acute coronary syndromes on dual antiplatelet therapy: a randomized, double-blind, phase II trial. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehr113

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.