Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 583

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Multicenter Comparison of Conventional Anticoagulation Versus Antiplatelet Therapy in Unplanned and Elective Coronary Stenting: The Full Anticoagulation Versus Aspirin and Ticlopidine (FANTASTIC) Study

Open access
Bertrand, Michel E., Legrand, Victor, Boland, Jean, Fleck, Eckart, Bonnier, Johannes, Emmanuelson, Hakan, Vrolix, Matty, Missault, Luc, Chierchia, Sergio, Casaccia, Michele, Niccoli, Luigi, Oto, Ali, White, Christopher, Webb-Peploe, Michael, Van Belle, Eric, McFadden, Eugène P.·1998·Circulation

Abstract

Background —Dual therapy with ticlopidine and aspirin has been shown to be as effective as or more effective than conventional anticoagulation in patients with an optimal result after implantation of intracoronary metallic stents. However, the safety and efficacy of antiplatelet therapy alone in an unselected population has not been evaluated. Methods —Patients were randomized to conventional anticoagulation or to treatment with antiplatelet therapy alone. Indications for stenting were classified as elective (decided before the procedure) or unplanned (to salvage failed angioplasty or to optimize the results of balloon angioplasty). After stenting, patients received aspirin and either ticlopidine or conventional anticoagulation (heparin or oral anticoagulant). The primary end point was the occurrence of bleeding or peripheral vascular complications; secondary end points were cardiac events (death, infarction, or stent occlusion) and duration of hospitalization. Results —In 13 centers, 236 patients were randomized to anticoagulation and 249 to antiplatelet therapy. Stenting was elective in 58% of patients and unplanned in 42%. Stent implantation was successfully achieved in 99% of patients. A primary end point occurred in 33 patients (13.5%) in the antiplatelet group and 48 patients (21%) in the anticoagulation group (odds ratio=0.6 [95% CI 0.36 to 0.98], P =0.03). Major cardiac-related events in electively stented patients were less common (odds ratio=0.23 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.91], P =0.01) in the antiplatelet group (3 of 123, 2.4%) than the anticoagulation group (11 of 111, 9.9%). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the antiplatelet group (4.3±3.6 versus 6.4±3.7 days, P =0.0001). Conclusions —Antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting significantly reduced rates of bleeding and subacute stent occlusion compared with conventional anticoagulation.

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 · 10.1161/01.cir.98.16.1597

Cites

8 of 8 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 8 references

Cited by

See all 583

Metadata

Authors
Bertrand, M. E., Legrand, V., Boland, J., Fleck, E., Bonnier, J., Emmanuelson, H., Vrolix, M., Missault, L., Chierchia, S., Casaccia, M., Niccoli, L., Oto, A., White, C., Webb-Peploe, M., Van Belle, E., & McFadden, E. P.
Venue
Circulation
Published
1998-10-20
Volume
98
Issue
16
Pages
1597-1603
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2121047179
Cited by
583
References
8
FWCI
25.23
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: Randomized Multicenter Comparison of Conventional Anticoagulation Versus Antiplatelet Therapy in Unplanned and Elective Coronary Stenting: The Full Anticoagulation Versus Aspirin and Ticlopidine (FANTASTIC) Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.98.16.1597
The paper
Bertrand, M. E., Legrand, V., Boland, J., Fleck, E., Bonnier, J., Emmanuelson, H., Vrolix, M., Missault, L., Chierchia, S., Casaccia, M., Niccoli, L., Oto, A., White, C., Webb-Peploe, M., Van Belle, E., & McFadden, E. P. (1998). Randomized Multicenter Comparison of Conventional Anticoagulation Versus Antiplatelet Therapy in Unplanned and Elective Coronary Stenting: The Full Anticoagulation Versus Aspirin and Ticlopidine (FANTASTIC) Study. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.98.16.1597

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.