Peter Attia· MD
So the standard of care in 2002, 2003, but before drug-eluting stents was take Plavix for one month and you're done.
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
So the standard of care in 2002, 2003, but before drug-eluting stents was take Plavix for one month and you're done.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
one of the biggest problems that happened was that you'd put the stent in there and then within a period of a few weeks, a non-trivial amount of people would come back with effectively was a STEMI. The stent would clot off.
But mostly that problem got solved with Plavix. And people realized if you take Plavix for a month after a bare metal stent, you're good to go.
I think now there's some great work being done by people. I think for the most part with these newest generation drug eluding stents, that have the right mixture and cocktail of drug on them and they're really easy to deliver and cause less injury, it's six months.
So today when a patient gets their stent, they also get the, what, a year supply of Plavix? How long do we keep it on? - Yeah, so where I was going with that was that there was this thing called subacute stent thrombosis. So thrombosis is the word for blood clotting. subacute means within a few weeks. So back in the day, if somebody stopped taking their Plavix or didn't get their Plavix, there was a likelihood that they would get this condition called subacute stem thrombosis.