Impact of an integrated treatment algorithm based on platelet function testing and clinical risk assessment: results of the TRIAGE Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions To Improve Clinical Outcomes Through Optimal Platelet Inhibition study

Resistance on the Latest Oral and Intravenous P2Y12 ADP Receptor Blockers in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes: Fact or Myth?

Novel P2Y12 ADP receptor blockers (ADPRB) should be preferred in dual-antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Nevertheless, there are still patients who do not respond optimally to novel ADP receptor blocker therapy, and this nonoptimal response (so-called "high on-treatment platelet reactivity" or "resistance") could be connected with increased risk of adverse ischemic events, such as myocardial re-infarction, target lesion failure and stent thrombosis. In addition, several risk factors have been proposed as factors associated with the phenomenon of inadequate response on novel ADPRB. These include obesity, multivessel coronary artery disease, high pre-treatment platelet reactivity and impaired metabolic status for prasugrel, as well as elderly, concomitant therapy with beta-blockers, morphine and platelet count for ticagrelor. There is no literature report describing nonoptimal therapeutic response on cangrelor, and cangrelor therapy seems to be a possible approach for overcoming HTPR on prasugrel and ticagrelor. However, the optimal therapeutic management of "resistance" on novel ADPRB is not clear and this issue requires further research. This narrative review article discusses the phenomenon of high on-treatment platelet reactivity on novel ADPRB, its importance in clinical practice and approaches for its therapeutic overcoming.

Predicting ischaemic events using platelet reactivity in patients receiving clopidogrel: Indirect meta-comparison among VerifyNow, light transmission aggregometry and thromboelastography

The present study compared performances of the three major methods used for assessing platelet reactivity (PR)-VerifyNow, light transmission aggregometry (LTA) and thromboelastography (TEG)-to predict ischaemic events in patients receiving clopidogrel. PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to April 2019 for prospective studies that examined PR using VerifyNow, LTA or TEG and the incidence of ischaemic events. The investigated diagnostic indices include sensitivity, specificity, positive (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) of VerifyNow, LTA and TEG, respectively. A total of 26 prospective studies involving 22 185 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled AUC was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.67-0.75) for VerifyNow, 0.60 (95% CI: 0.55-0.64) for LTA and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84) for TEG. Results of indirect comparisons indicated the AUC of VerifyNow was higher than that of LTA (1.18, 95% CI: 1.08-1.30) and lower than that of TEG (0.88, 95% CI: 0.82-0.94). TEG outperformed the other two methods for assessing PR in all predictive measures, including sensitivity, specificity, PLR and NLR. Despite a lack of studies that directly compared the three methods, our findings suggest that TEG should be recommended.

Association between High Platelet Reactivity Following Dual Antiplatelet Therapy and Ischemic Events in Japanese Patients with Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Stent Implantation

AIM

Although high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) correlates with long-term adverse outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the correlation in Japanese patients remains unclear. Therefore, we examined the relationship between platelet reactivity during DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel and 1-year clinical outcomes following successful coronary stent implantation.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter registry study (j-CHIPS) was conducted in patients undergoing coronary stenting and receiving aspirin and clopidogrel at 16 hospitals in Japan. A VerifyNow point-of-care assay was used to assess platelet reactivity, and a cutoff value to define HTPR was established.

RESULTS

Between February 2011 and May 2013, 1047 patients were prospectively enrolled, of which 854 patients with platelet function evaluation at 12-24 h after PCI were included in the final analysis. After 1 year of follow-up, the incidence of the primary endpoint (a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and ischemic stroke) was significantly higher in patients with HTPR than in those without (5.9% vs. 1.5%, p=0.008), and HTPR showed a modest ability to discriminate between patients who did and did not experience major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (area under the curve, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.511-0.688, p=0.039). HTPR status did not identify patients at risk for major or minor bleeding events.

CONCLUSION

HTPR was significantly associated with adverse ischemic outcomes at 1 year after PCI in Japanese patients receiving maintenance DAPT, indicating its potential as a prognostic indicator of clinical outcomes in this high-risk patient population.