The use of the VerifyNowsystem to monitor antiplatelet therapy: A review of the current evidence

The Utility of Platelet and Coagulation Testing of Antithrombotics: Fusing Science with Patient Care

[Table: see text] There is an increasing need for the standardization of platelet function and coagulation testing for the assessment of antithrombotic therapies. Investigators continue to strive to identify ideal laboratory testing and monitoring procedures for acquired and inherited platelet function defects as well as for evaluating patient status when treated with existing or emerging antithrombotics. These therapies are used primarily in the treatment of ischemic complications. In patients receiving antithrombotic therapy, the balance between hemostasis and thrombosis is a challenge as there is an ongoing risk for bleeding when patients are receiving antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants to lessen their risk for secondary thrombotic events. There are several diverse tests for monitoring anticoagulant therapy; however, as new agents are developed, more specific tests will be required to directly assess these agents in relationship to overall coagulation status. Research in the platelet biology field is ongoing to provide point-of-care methodologies for the assessment of platelet reactivity in terms of both bleeding and thrombosis risk. Currently there are no instruments that reliably assess the risk of bleeding. The challenges that routinely faced are the complexity of physiology, the need for standardization of platelet testing methodology, and the necessity for appropriate interpretation of the test results.

Is platelet inhibition due to thienopyridines increased in elderly patients, in patients with previous stroke and patients with low body weight as a possible explanation of an increased bleeding risk?

Background

The TRITON-TIMI 38 study has identified three subgroups of patients with a higher risk of bleeding during treatment with the thienopyridine prasugrel: patients with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), patients ≥75 years and patients with a body weight <60 kg. However, the underlying pathobiology leading to this increased bleeding risk remains to be elucidated. The higher bleeding rate may be due to a stronger prasugrel-induced inhibition of platelet aggregation in these subgroups. The aim of the present study was to determine whether on-treatment platelet reactivity is lower in these risk subgroups as compared with other patients in a large cohort on the thienopyridine clopidogrel undergoing elective coronary stenting.

Methods

A total of 1069 consecutive patients were enrolled. On-clopidogrel platelet reactivity was measured in parallel by light transmittance aggregometry, the VerifyNow® P2Y12 assay and the PFA-100 collagen/ADP cartridge.

Results

Fourteen patients (1.5%) had a prior history of stroke or TIA, 138 patients (14.5%) were older than 75 years and 30 patients (3.2%) had a body weight <60 kg. Age ≥ 75 years and a history of stroke were independent predictors of a higher on-treatment platelet reactivity. In contrast, a body weight <60 kg was significantly associated with a lower on-treatment platelet reactivity.

Conclusion

In two high-risk subgroups for bleeding, patients ≥ 75 years and patients with previous stroke, on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity is increased. In contrast, in patients with a low body weight, on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity is decreased, suggesting that a stronger response to a thienopyridine might only lead to more bleeds in patients with low body weight

Comparison of a new P2Y12 receptor specific platelet aggregation test with other laboratory methods in stroke patients on clopidogrel monotherapy

Background

Clinical studies suggest that 10-50% of patients are resistant to clopidogrel therapy. ADP induced platelet aggregation, a widely used test to monitor clopidogrel therapy, is affected by aspirin and is not specific for the P2Y12 receptor inhibited by clopidogrel.

Objectives

To develop a P2Y12-specific platelet aggregation test and to compare it with other methods used for monitoring clopidogrel therapy.

Patients/Methods

Study population included 111 patients with the history of ischemic stroke being on clopidogrel monotherapy and 140 controls. The effect of clopidogrel was tested by a newly developed ADP(PGE1) aggregation test in which prostaglandin E1 treated platelets are used. Results of conventional ADP induced platelet aggregation, VerifyNow P2Y12 assay and ADP(PGE1) aggregation were compared to those obtained by flow cytometric analysis of vasodilator stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) phosphorylation. Reference intervals for all assays were determined according to the guidelines of Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute.

Results

The P2Y12-specificity of ADP(PGE1) test was proven by comparing it with ADP aggregation in the presence of P2Y1 antagonist, adenosine 3’, 5’-diphosphate. The method was not influenced by aspirin treatment. Approximately 50% of patients were clopidogrel resistant by conventional ADP aggregation and VerifyNow tests. The ADP(PGE1) method and the VASP phosphorylation assay identified 25.9% and 11.7% of patients as non-responders, respectively. ADP(PGE1) aggregation showed good correlation with VASP phosphorylation and had high diagnostic efficiency.

Conclusion

The new ADP(PGE1) method is a reliable test for monitoring P2Y12 receptor inhibition by platelet aggregation. As a subset of patients are non-responders, monitoring clopidogrel therapy by adequate methods is essential.

Brodde M. State of the art in platelet function testing

Platelets perform many functions in hemostasis but also in other areas of physiology and pathology. Therefore, it is obvious that many different function tests have been developed, each one conceived and standardized for a special purpose. This review will summarize the different fields in which platelet function testing is currently in use; diagnostics of patients with bleeding disorders, monitoring patients' response to anti-platelet therapy, monitoring in transfusion medicine (blood donors, platelet concentrates, and after transfusion), and monitoring in perioperative medicine to predict bleeding tendency. The second part of the review outlines different methods for platelet function testing, spanning bleeding time, and platelet counting as well as determining platelet adhesion, platelet secretion, platelet aggregation, platelet morphology, platelet signal transduction, platelet procoagulant activity, platelet apoptosis, platelet proteomics, and molecular biology.

Current Concepts in the Clinical Utility of Platelet Reactivity Testing

The pharmacodynamic effect of clopidogrel varies among individuals; approximately a third will have high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) to adenosine diphosphate and may benefit from more intensive antiplatelet therapy. Platelet reactivity testing has an important role in monitoring the therapeutic efficiency of clopidogrel and the safety of more potent drugs that confer an increased bleeding risk, because it provides a direct measure of the biological effect of these drugs. Numerous studies have demonstrated an association between HTPR and the risk of cardiac events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). While the prognostic value of platelet reactivity testing following PCI has been demonstrated repeatedly in cohort studies and meta-analyses, randomised controlled studies investigating the clinical utility of the technique to guide treatment decisions failed to improve clinical outcomes of clopidogrel-treated patients undergoing stent implantation. Available data suggest that platelet function monitoring may be carried out in clopidogrel-treated patients with a higher risk of thrombotic events. These include patient risk factors such as body mass index (BMI), type 2 diabetes, and those prior unexpected ischemic events such as stent thrombosis, as well as procedural risk factors. As we move towards conclusively defining a therapeutic window associated with both cardiovascular (upper threshold) and bleeding risk (lower threshold) for antiplatelet agents, platelet reactivity testing will become a central tool in the practice of personalised strategies.

Clopidogrel hyper-response and bleeding risk in neurointerventional procedures

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Antiplatelet therapy is associated with decreased ischemic events after neurointerventional procedures. Antiplatelet resistance negates the protective effects of antiplatelet medication, leading to a higher incidence of ischemic events. A possible link between antiplatelet hyper-response and increased hemorrhagic complications has been inadequately investigated. We aimed to examine the correlation between antiplatelet hyper-response and the risk of hemorrhagic complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who were treated with antiplatelet medications and underwent neurointerventional procedures were prospectively recruited. We collected the following data: demographics, vascular risk factors, antiplatelet and anticoagulation treatment, antiplatelet responsiveness, coagulation profile, and hemorrhagic complications. P2Y12 receptor-mediated platelet inhibition was tested by using the VerifyNow assay device. The primary end points were postprocedural major and minor hemorrhagic complications. Receiver operator characteristic analysis was used to evaluate the percentage of platelet inhibition as a diagnostic tool for bleeding events. The association between hemorrhage and percentage of platelet inhibition was investigated by using logistic regression modeling.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients were enrolled. The mean age was 56±12 years, and 28% were men. Ten patients (21.3%) developed hemorrhagic complications. Clopidogrel response was higher in patients with a major bleeding complication compared with those with minor or no bleeding (median, 94% versus 24% platelet inhibition; P=.0084). Of the 7 patients (14.9%) defined as hyper-responders with ≥72% platelet inhibition, 42.8% had a major bleeding complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Hyper-response to clopidogrel is associated with increased risk of hemorrhagic complications. Larger studies are urgently needed to validate a clinically useful threshold to define clopidogrel hyper-response and to examine the clinical effects of antiplatelet dosage adjustment.

Lack of association between low density lipoprotein particle size and on-treatment platelet reactivity in patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Small dense low density lipoproteins (sd-LDL) are a risk factor for coronary artery disease and are known to stimulate platelet function in vitro. This study aimed to evaluate whether high proportion of sd-LDL is associated with high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HOPR).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

From January 2009 to March 2010, 439 subjects (mean age: 64.3±9.7, Male : Female=306 : 133) were enrolled from the low density LIPOProtein-cholesterol Size measurement Registry with coronary artery disease, who had undergone elective percutaneous coronary intervention and measured both LDL particle size and on-treatment platelet reactivity (OPR). Mean LDL particle size was measured by gradient gel electrophoresis (Quantimetrix, Lipoprint™) and OPR by the VerifyNow™ system (aspirin and P2Y12).

RESULTS

Between pattern A (large, buoyant LDL dominant) and B (sd-LDL dominant) population, there were no significant difference in OPR to aspirin (441.3±71.9 vs. 434.07±63.45 aspirin reaction units, p=0.351) or clopidogrel (237.9±87.3 vs. 244.9±80.7 P2Y12 reaction units, p=0.465). There was no difference in LDL particle size between patients with HOPR compared with non-HOPR patients (aspirin: 26.8±0.5 vs. 26.7±0.6 nm, p=0.078, clopidogrel: 26.7±0.6 vs. 26.8±0.5 nm, p=0.857). Pearson's correlation coefficients between LDL particle size and platelet reactivity were not statistically significant (aspirin assay: r=0.080, p=0.098, P2Y12 assay: r=-0.027, p=0.568).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant association between LDL particle size and OPR in patients with coronary artery disease.

Aspirin resistance: current status and role of tailored therapy

Aspirin is integral in the primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome. Given the high clinical importance of aspirin in the management of coronary artery disease, much attention has been directed towards the concept of "aspirin resistance." Unfortunately, the term aspirin resistance is ill-defined in the literature, leading to a large variance in the reported prevalence of this phenomenon. In this review, the current understanding of aspirin resistance is discussed. Commonly used functional and diagnostic tests of platelet function, including their strengths and weakness, are reviewed. We next discuss several proposed mechanisms of aspirin resistance and special high-risk groups at risk for aspirin treatment failure. We then discuss optimal dosing and diagnostic strategies for those populations at risk for aspirin resistance with a focus on tailored aspirin therapy for high-risk groups. Finally, future topics of interest in the field of aspirin resistance are considered.

Clinical disability progression and platelet GP IIb/IIIa values in patients with atopic myelitis

We aimed to clarify the disability progression and platelet aggregative function in atopic myelitis (AM). Seventeen AM patients and 35 healthy controls were subjected to clinico-allergological evaluations and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GP IIb/IIIa) measurements using a VerifyNow assay system. In AM patients, the disease duration had significant positive correlations with the Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale scores and Sensory Functional Scale scores. The GP IIb/IIIa values were significantly higher in AM patients than in controls as well as in females compared with males. AM is essentially a progressive disease affecting the sensory system, and involves an increased platelet aggregative function.

Combined influence of proton-pump inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers and CYP2C19*2 on on-treatment platelet reactivity and on the occurrence of atherothrombotic events after percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The carriage of CYP2C19*2 and the use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) has been associated with the diminished efficacy of clopidogrel. However, previous studies have only assessed the isolated impact of these risk factors for clopidogrel poor response.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of the combined presence of three risk factors for clopidogrel poor response, that is, the use of CCBs, PPIs and the carriage of CYP2C19*2, on on-treatment platelet reactivity and the occurrence of atherothrombotic events in 725 patients on dual antiplatelet therapy undergoing elective coronary stenting.

METHODS

In a prospective, follow-up study, on-treatment platelet reactivity was quantified using ADP-induced light transmittance aggregometry (LTA) and the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay. The clinical study endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke at 1 year after stenting.

RESULTS

Patients with either one or more than one risk factor exhibited increased platelet reactivity (mean relative increase one risk factor: 11% and > 1 risk factor: 22%, respectively). Sixty-four events occurred during follow-up (8.8% of the study population). Patients with one risk factor for clopidogrel poor response did not have an increased risk of the composite endpoint. However, patients using both CCBs and PPIs and carriers of CYP2C19*2 who used CCBs had a statistically significant increased risk of the composite endpoint [hazard ratio(HR)(adj) 2.2 95% CI, 1.0-5.3, P = 0.044 and HR(adj) 3.3 95% CI, 1.1-9.8, P = 0.032, respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of more than one of the three investigated risk factors for clopidogrel poor response is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events within 1 year after elective coronary stenting.

Preoperative aspirin resistance does not increase myocardial injury during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery

We performed a prospective cohort trial on 220 patients undergoing elective off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery and taking aspirin to evaluate the effect of aspirin resistance on myocardial injury. The patients were divided into aspirin responders and aspirin non-responders by the value of the aspirin reaction units obtained preoperatively using the VerifyNow™ Aspirin Assay. The serum levels of troponin I were measured before surgery and 1, 6, 24, 48 and 72 hr after surgery. In-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, graft occlusion, the postoperative blood loss and reexploration for bleeding were recorded. Of the 220 patients, 181 aspirin responders (82.3%) and 39 aspirin non-responders (17.7%) were defined. There were no significant differences in troponin I levels (ng/mL) between aspirin responders and aspirin non-responders: preoperative (0.04 ± 0.08 vs 0.03 ± 0.06; P = 0.56), postoperative 1 hr (0.72 ± 0.87 vs 0.86 ± 1.10; P = 0.54), 6 hr (2.92 ± 8.76 vs 1.50 ± 2.40; P = 0.94), 24 hr (4.16 ± 13.44 vs 1.25 ± 1.95; P = 0.52), 48 hr (2.15 ± 7.06 vs 0.65 ± 0.95; P = 0.64) and 72 hr (1.20 ± 4.63 vs 0.38 ± 0.56; P = 0.47). Moreover, no significant differences were observed with regard to in-hospital outcomes. In conclusion, preoperative aspirin resistance does not increase myocardial injury in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. Postoperative dual antiplatelet therapy might have protected aspirin resistant patients.

A case-control study on platelet reactivity in patients with coronary stent thrombosis

BACKGROUND

The pathophysiology of stent thrombosis (ST) has evolved from the identification of single causative factors to a complex multifactorial model.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether patients with a history of ST exhibit heightened platelet reactivity to clopidogrel and aspirin.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Pretreatment and on-treatment platelet reactivity to clopidogrel and aspirin, as well as dual antiplatelet therapy resistance, was determined in 84 patients with a history of definite ST (cases: 41 early ST; 43 late ST) and in 103 control patients with a previously implanted coronary stent but no ST after the index procedure. Platelet function was evaluated with optical aggregometry, the VerifyNow P2Y12 and aspirin assays, the PFA-100 Innovance P2Y* cartridge, the flow cytometric vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein assay and urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B(2) measurement before and after the administration of a 600-mg loading dose of clopidogrel and 100 mg of aspirin. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01012544.

RESULTS

Patients with a history of early ST clearly demonstrated higher on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity than controls. Patients with both early and late ST exhibited heightened on-aspirin platelet reactivity status, and dual antiplatelet therapy resistance was more frequent.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a history of early ST exhibit a poor response to clopidogrel. Furthermore, both early and late ST are strongly and independently associated with heightened on-aspirin platelet reactivity, and dual antiplatelet therapy resistance is more frequent.

Medium on-treatment platelet reactivity to ADP is favorable in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing coronary stenting

Bleeding in the setting of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has negative prognostic implications. We sought to determine the impact of different levels of on-treatment platelet reactivity (PR) to ADP on both bleeding and ischemic events in ACS patients receiving coronary stenting. PR to ADP was measured with the VerifyNow P₂Y₁₂ assay (Accumetrics, San Diego, CA) in 374 patients with ACS receiving standard dual antiplatelet therapy. Patients were stratified into three tertiles according to the increasing values of P₂Y₁₂ reaction units with the first tertile defined as low, second as medium, and third as high PR. The end points were bleeding (TIMI major or minor), ischemic end point (cardiovascular death and non-fatal myocardial infarction), and combined end point (bleeding or ischemic end point). At 30 days: low PR was associated with increased risk of bleeding as compared to medium (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 3.50, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.30-9.42, p = 0.013) and high PR (HR 2.78, 95% CI 1.50-5.15, p = 0.001); high PR posed increased risk of ischemic endpoint as compared with medium PR (HR 7.26, 95% CI 1.67-31.55, p = 0.008) and a trend towards higher incidence of ischemic events was observed when compared with low PR (HR 1.51, 95% CI 0.96-2.36, p = 0.074); patients with medium PR were at significantly lower risk of combined end point as compared to those with low (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.12-0.75, p = 0.01) and high PR (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12-0.77, p = 0.012). In conclusion, low PR to ADP is associated with increased hazard of bleeding and poses similar combined risk of bleeding and ischemic events as high PR. Medium PR predicts favorable net outcome in ACS patients.

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors: an update on the mechanism of action and use of functional testing methods to assess antiplatelet efficacy

The human glycoprotein (GP)IIb/IIIa belongs to a large family of cation-dependent adhesion molecules known as integrins, which share a common heterodimeric structure. The primary function of GPIIb/IIIa is to aid platelet aggregation by transmitting bidirectional signals across the plasma membrane. Since the GPIIb/IIIa receptor is among the key integrins involved in platelet aggregation and, therefore, thrombus formation, the development of GPIIb/IIIa antagonists (e.g., abciximab, eptifibatide and tirofiban) has become an attractive strategy for antiplatelet therapy with an expected strong and specific effect. All three drugs are administered intravenously, and large-scale clinical trials have demonstrated a clear clinical benefit and good safety profile in high-risk patients, especially those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the adverse events related to thrombosis or bleeding are still reported in patients undergoing therapy with GPIIb/IIIa antagonists and reflect a variable interindividual responsiveness. Therefore, some form of laboratory monitoring is required to optimize the effects of a drug or to indicate that it needs replacing with other antithrombotic agents, as well as for identifying and enhancing the platelet inhibition in this subgroup of patients to improve the clinical outcome and reduce bleeding complications. As such, the aim of this article is to provide an update on the mechanism of action and use of functional testing methods to assess antiplatelet efficacy in patients undergoing therapy with GPIIb/IIIa antagonists.

Functional testing methods for the antiplatelet effects of aspirin

At antiplatelet doses of 75–325 mg/day, aspirin irreversibly inhibits the platelet cyclooxygenase (COX)-1-dependent thromboxane A2 (TXA2) formation. This is the pharmacological mode of action of aspirin, and it can be predicted that if aspirin does not inhibit COX-1 sufficiently, patients will not benefit from its antiplatelet effects. A pharmacodynamic failure of aspirin occurs in 1–2% of patients. The vast majority of atherothrombotic events in patients treated with aspirin result from mechanisms that are dependent on residual (non-COX-1-dependent) platelet reactivity. Global tests of platelet activation in vitro may identify patients with high residual platelet reactivity but are not sufficiently specific to test the pharmacological effect of aspirin. A further problem is the absence of standardized normal ranges for many assays and the fact that different equipment measures different signals, which are also influenced by the agonist and the anticoagulant used. Similar considerations apply for the determination of platelet-derived biomarkers such as circulating P-selectin, soluble CD40 ligand and others. The direct measurement of inhibition of thromboxane-forming capacity is the most specific pharmacological assay for aspirin. However, there is no linear correlation between inhibition of TXA2 formation and inhibition of platelet function. Measurement of urinary levels of the TXB2 metabolite, 11-dehydro-thromboxane B2, represents an index of TXA2 biosynthesis in vivo, but is also sensitive to other cellular sources of TXA2. One general problem of all assays is the relationship with clinical outcome, which is still unclear. Monitoring aspirin treatment by testing platelet function or measuring biomarkers in clinical practice should not be recommended until a clear relationship for the predictive value of these assays for clinical outcome has been established.

Perioperative assessment of platelet function in patients under antiplatelet therapy

Platelets play a central role in primary hemostasis. Analysis of platelet function is therefore a cornerstone in the global assessment of the coagulation status in the perioperative setting, primarily in patients receiving antiplatelet medication, such as cyclooxygenase-1 inhibitors, adenosine diphosphate antagonists and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. In these patients, knowledge of residual platelet function is highly warranted in order to maintain an optimal and individual balance perioperatively between platelet function and inhibition - that is, bleeding and thrombosis. Traditional laboratory-based assays, such as light-transmission aggregometry and flow cytometry, are the clinical standards of platelet function testing today. Light-transmission aggregometry is one of the most widely used tests to identify and diagnose defects in platelet function. The majority of the conventional laboratory-based techniques are labor intensive, costly and time consuming, and require a high degree of experience and expertise to perform and interpret. Therefore, new automated technologies have been developed to measure platelet function more rapidly and easily, and several techniques can be used at the bedside, including whole blood aggregometry, high shear-induced platelet function assessment or viscoelastic measurement techniques. All methods assessing platelet function are summarized and their limitations are discussed in this article, emphasizing their perioperative use.

Platelet function testing in clinical diagnostics

Although the utility of platelet function testing is still under debate, the necessity to inhibit platelets in patients suffering from cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease is undoubted and well proven. The wide variety of available platelet function tests often using different methodologies, the apparent lack of standardization, and finally the emerging evidence on the clinical value of platelet function testing are resulting in a considerable uncertainty in the clinical practice, how to deal with the issue of platelet function testing. Platelet function testing might not only yield clinical benefits for the patients but also economical advantages by identifying the right drug at the right dose for the right patient. This article intends to provide an overview of the current platelet function tests such as light transmittance aggregometry, whole blood impedance aggregometry, the PFA-1001 system, the VerifyNow2 system, flow cytometry, as well as other promising technologies like Plateletworks3, IMPACT-R4, PADA, thromboelastography, and the mean platelet component (MPC), briefly addressing strengths, weaknesses and clinical utility of these tests.

High on-aspirin platelet reactivity as measured with aggregation-based, cyclooxygenase-1 inhibition sensitive platelet function tests is associated with the occurrence of atherothrombotic events

BACKGROUND

 High on-aspirin platelet reactivity (HAPR) is associated with atherothrombotic events following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim of the present study was to identify the platelet function test sensitive for platelet cyclooxygenase-1 inhibition that best predicts atherothrombotic events.

METHODS AND RESULTS

 Nine hundred and fifty-one consecutive patients on dual antiplatelet therapy undergoing elective PCI were enrolled. On-aspirin platelet reactivity was measured in parallel by arachidonic acid (AA)-induced light transmittance aggregometry (AA-induced LTA), the VerifyNow® Aspirin Assay (VerifyNow® Aspirin Assay), the arachidonic acid prestimulated IMPACT-R (IMPACT-R AA) and the PFA-100 collagen/epinephrine cartridge (PFA COL/EPI). Cut-offs for HAPR were established by receiver-operator characteristic curve analysis. At 1-year follow-up, the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal acute myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and ischemic stroke occurred more frequently in patients with HAPR when assessed by LTA [10.1% vs. 6.0%, P=0.020 (n=925)] and VerifyNow(®) [13.3% vs. 5.9%, P=0.015 (n=422)]. The VerifyNow(®) ASA assay (AUC=0.78) and, to a lesser extent, AA-induced LTA (AUC=0.73) added significantly to a model consisting of clinical and procedural risk factors in predicting atherothrombotic events. In contrast, the IMPACT-R (n=791) and the PFA Collagen/Epinephrine (n=719) were unable to discriminate between patients with and without primary endpoint at 1-year follow-up. None of the platelet function tests was able to identify patients at risk for bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

 AA-induced LTA and the VerifyNow(®) ASA test were able to identify aspirin-treated patients undergoing PCI with stenting at risk for atherothrombotic events. The VerifyNow(®) Aspirin Assay had the highest predictive accuracy. None of the tests was able to identify patients at higher risk of bleeding.

Platelet function tests for the monitoring of P2Y12 inhibitors

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

The individual response to clopidogrel therapy is unpredictable, resulting in high on-treatment platelet reactivity in a substantial number of patients. Moreover, consistent findings across multiple investigations point out that a strong relationship exists between high on-treatment platelet reactivity and the occurrence of atherothrombotic events.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This paper describes the current available methods of platelet function evaluation, including their advantages and drawbacks, reviews the evidence for the relation between high on-treatment platelet reactivity and clinical outcome, and discusses data concerning the clinical implications of platelet function testing in patients treated with thienopyridine therapy.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The reader will be introduced to platelet function testing and its clinical applicability. The reader will gain a better understanding of the techniques used and will learn how to interpret the numerous data on platelet function testing and clinical outcome.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Although a growing body of evidence demonstrates the promising potential of platelet function tests in predicting atherothrombotic events post stenting, platelet function testing should not yet be used routinely, as adequate treatment of high on-treatment platelet reactivity is unknown.

[Perioperative management of patients with coronary stents in non-cardiac surgery]

In patients with coronary stents scheduled for surgery the question arises whether and how antiplatelet therapy should be continued. Risks of perioperative bleeding and of acute stent thrombosis have to be considered simultaneously. The bleeding risk depends primarily on the kind of surgery and on patient comorbidity. The risk of stent thrombosis is increased in these patients due to the thrombogenic surface of the stents. The main determinants are hereby the time duration after stent implantation, the kind of the stent [uncoated (bare-metal stent, BMS) or coated (drug-eluting stent, DES)], as well as angiographic and clinical patient factors. Therefore, perioperative antiplatelet therapy has to be individually adapted for each patient. Bridging with heparin is ineffective. Bridging with intravenous antiplatelet drugs during the perioperative interruption of oral antiplatelet therapy might be a potential procedure in high-risk patients. Whether bedside monitoring of antiplatelet therapy improves the perioperative management of these patients and reduces adverse outcome is object of current studies.

Point-of-care coagulation testing and transfusion algorithms

Patients with cardiovascular disease have an array of haemostasis disorders that predispose to the development of thrombotic and embolic disease states. These patients are often maintained on anti-thrombotic medication to prevent adverse cardiovascular events. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery also have haemostatic disorders that include their intrinsic disease state, adjunctive medication, and the coagulation disturbances induced by cardiopulmonary bypass. The following review introduces the monitors that are available for monitoring perioperative coagulation, with an emphasis on cardiovascular surgery. Heparin monitors, platelet function monitors for use in transfusion algorithms, and monitoring anti-platelet drugs will be discussed.

Besides CYP2C19*2, the variant allele CYP2C9*3 is associated with higher on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy undergoing elective coronary stent implantation

INTRODUCTION

The prodrug, clopidogrel, plays an important role in the prevention of thrombotic events in patients undergoing coronary stenting. However, a substantial number of atherothrombotic events still occur, which can partially be explained by heightened residual platelet reactivity. Several studies report that the genetic variation in CYP2C19 (*2) is associated with an impaired response to clopidogrel.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of genetic variants affecting clopidogrel's absorption (ABCB1 C1236T, G2677T/A, C3435T), metabolism (CYP2C9*2, *3, CYP2C19*3, CYP3A4*1B, and CYP3A5*3), and pharmacodynamics (P2Y1 A1622G) on top of the influence of CYP2C19*2 on platelet reactivity in patients undergoing elective coronary stenting on dual antiplatelet therapy.

METHODS

Platelet function was assessed by light transmittance aggregometry and VerifyNow P2Y12 assay in 428 consecutive patients. Patients were either on chronic clopidogrel maintenance therapy (75 mg/day for > or =5 days before the intervention) or received a 300 mg clopidogrel loading dose (1-5 days before the intervention, followed by 75 mg/day). Linear and logistic regressions were used to assess the associations between genetic variants and platelet reactivity and poor responder status.

RESULTS

In both the treatment groups, CYP2C19*2-carriage was associated with higher platelet reactivity (P<0.002) and poor responder status; 75 mg group: adjusted odds ratio (ORadj): 3.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0-7.2, 300 mg group: ORadj: 4.1, 95% CI: 1.6-10.4. In the 300 mg group, CYP2C9*3-carriage was associated with higher platelet reactivity (P<0.05) and poor responder status (ORadj: 11.1, 95% CI: 1.6-78.8, P=0.016).

CONCLUSION

Besides CYP2C19*2, the variant allele CYP2C9*3 plays an important role in the response to clopidogrel in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy undergoing coronary stenting.

Laboratory assessment and perioperative management of patients on antiplatelet therapy: from the bench to the bedside

The contribution of platelets in the pathophysiology of thromboses has established antiplatelet therapy as a cornerstone for prevention or treatment of these disorders. However, patients on antiplatelet drugs undergoing surgery face the life-threatening dilemma between the risk of perioperative thrombosis by ceasing therapy and restoring platelet function versus the risk of surgical bleeding by its continuation. According to their mechanism of action, antiplatelet drugs can be conventionally classified as agents that inhibit cyclooxygenase, block the platelet adenosine diphosphate P2Y12 receptor, inhibit phosphodiesterase, or block platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa. Although several tests have been developed to assess platelet inhibition by most of these compounds, studies to date have not been able to reliably evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of these tests to predict hemorrhage and/or blood loss, and accordingly perioperative assessment of drug-induced platelet inhibition cannot be recommended as yet. Although several management options are available to counteract the hemorrhagic risk of surgical patients using antiplatelet agents, perioperative discontinuation of these drugs is the preferable choice wherever possible. The use of platelet transfusions should be limited where necessary to the treatment of major, life-threatening bleeding. The contribution of newer hemostatic agents, such as desmopressin and recombinant activated factor VII, is yet to be fully determined, and there remain many challenges and unresolved issues in the clinical care of these patients.