Platelet reactivity in MitraClip patients

Impact of high on-treatment platelet reactivity after angioplasty in patients with critical limb ischemia

OBJECTIVES

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel is standard of care in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA). However, high on treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) to DAPT is frequent and associated with major adverse limb events (MALE) in PAD patients. Nevertheless, association of MALE and HTPR in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) is not known. Moreover, comorbidities might confound response to antiplatelet medication further. Hence, in this trial we analyzed pharmacodynamic responses to DAPT and clinical events in CLI patients post PTA.

METHODS

In this prospective single center pilot analysis, we included 71 CLI patients. Patients received DAPT after PTA. Antiplatelet effect were measured by light transmission aggregometry (LTA) and vasodilator-stimulated protein phosphorylation assay (VASP). MALE, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and BARC bleeding within 12 months follow-up were assessed.

RESULTS

Mean age of patients was 73.37 ± 7.36 years and 47 (66.2%) were male. Overall HTPR appeared in 46 patients (64.8%). MALE and MACCE showed no differences between patients with and patients without HTPR. However, bleeding was higher in patients with sufficient pharmacodynamic response to DAPT (Bleeding - HTPR: 13.4% vs. no HTPR: 36.0%; log-rank HR: 0.32; 95% CI 0.1079 to 0.9396 p = 0.0217). This finding remained robust in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

HTPR to DAPT is frequent in CLI patients. However, bleeding was higher in patients with sufficient response to DAPT. Ischemic events did not differ. Hence, CLI patients might benefit from an alternative antithrombotic approach.

Noncanonical Effects of Oral Thrombin and Factor Xa Inhibitors in Platelet Activation and Arterial Thrombosis

Nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) or direct oral anticoagulants comprise inhibitors of factor Xa (rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban) or factor IIa (dabigatran). Both classes efficiently interfere with the final or penultimate step of the coagulation cascade and showed superior net clinical benefit compared with vitamin K antagonists for prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with AF and for prevention and therapy of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. None the less, accumulating data suggested, that there may be differences regarding the frequency of atherothrombotic cardiovascular events between NOACs. Thus, the optimal individualized NOAC for each patient remains a matter of debate. Against this background, some basic and translational analyses emphasized NOAC effects that impact on platelet activity and arterial thrombus formation beyond inhibition of plasmatic coagulation. In this review, we will provide an overview of the available clinical and translational evidence for so-called noncanonical NOAC effects on platelet activation and arterial thrombosis.

A novel mechanism of ACE inhibition-associated enhanced platelet reactivity: disproof of the ARB-MI paradox?

PURPOSE

ACE inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) are important drugs in cardiovascular disease. However, little is known about which of these drug class is to be preferred. First analyses show that the blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) influences platelet reactivity. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of ACEI and ARB on platelet reactivity and thrombin generation.

METHODS

We conducted a time series analysis in 34 patients. We performed light transmission aggregometry (LTA) to evaluate platelet reactivity. Results are given as maximum of aggregation (MoA). Thrombin generation was measured as endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) via calibrated automated thrombogram. Flow cytometry was used to analyze protease-activated receptor (PAR)-1 expression.

RESULTS

ACEI treatment significantly increased platelet reactivity already 4 h after initiation of treatment (prior vs. 4 h post ACEI: MoA 41.9 ± 16.2% vs. 55.2 ± 16.7%; p = 0.003). After switching from ACEI to ARB treatment, platelet reactivity decreased significantly (3 months after switching: MoA 34.7 ± 20.9%; p = 0.03). ACEI reduced endogenous thrombin potential significantly from before to 3 months after ACEI (ETP 1527 ± 437 nM × min vs. 1088 ± 631 nM × min; p = 0.025). Platelet thrombin receptor (PAR1) expression increased from 37.38 ± 10.97% before to 49.53 ± 6.04% after ACEI treatment (p = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

ACEI enhanced platelet reactivity. This can be reversed by changing to ARB. The mechanism behind RAAS influencing platelet function seems to be associated with PAR-1 expression.

Impact of high on-treatment platelet reactivity after angioplasty in patients with peripheral arterial disease

Objective: High on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) predicts adverse events in coronary artery disease patients. In peripheral artery disease (PAD) patients, data concerning the clinical impact of HTPR are limited. Therefore, we evaluated the incidence of (i) HTPR to DAPT and (ii) its impact on 6 months outcome after angioplasty.Methods and results: In this prospective single center analysis, we investigated 102 consecutive patients with PAD from 2016 to 2017. All patients underwent peripheral endovascular treatment due to intermittent claudication (Fontaine IIb). Clopidogrel effects were measured using vasodilator-stimulated protein phosphorylation (VASP) assay, aspirin effects by light-transmission aggregometry (LTA). Major adverse limb events (MALE), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and BARC bleeding (bleeding academic research consortium classification) within 6 months were assessed. HTPR to clopidogrel (n = 37, 36%), to aspirin (n = 11, 11%) and to both (n = 11, 11%) were frequent. Compared to sufficient platelet inhibition by aspirin and clopidogrel (n = 43, 42%), patients with dual HTPR showed a higher risk of MALE at 6 months (27% vs. 7%; hazard ratio [HR]: 4.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1 to 67.8; p = .03). This was independent of diabetes, creatinine, body mass index, and age as well as of procedural details in a multivariate logistic regression analysis. MACCE (n = 2) and BARC bleeding rates (n = 2) were low.Conclusion: In this small exploratory study, HTPR was frequent in PAD patients. Furthermore, the results are suggestive that MALE might be associated with dual HTPR. This leads to the hypothesis that optimized antithrombotic regimens post percutaneous transluminal angioplasty should be tested in clinical trials.

Platelet Reactivity in Patients on Aspirin and Clopidogrel Therapy Measured by a New Bedside Whole-Blood Assay

Various tests are available for measuring on-treatment platelet reactivity. The pharmacologically most specific assays are time-consuming and elaborate. A highly specific and convenient assay would be desirable for clinical routine. In this pilot study, we aimed to examine the ability of a novel bedside whole-blood assay-ROTEM platelet-to evaluate platelet inhibition compared with established assays. Platelet reactivity was investigated in 93 patients. Forty-Seven patients were on permanent aspirin therapy and 46 on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel. We used ROTEM platelet impedance aggregometry (ROTEM-PTL), light transmission aggregometry (LTA), Multiplate electrode aggregometry (MEA) and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein flow cytometry. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses showed ROTEM-PTL differentiates well between patients on medication and healthy individuals: aspirin: ROCAUC 0.99 (95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.01); P < 0.0001; DAPT treatment: ROCAUC 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91); P < 0.001. Pearson regression analyses showed moderate correlations between assays. Aspirin: MEA versus ROTEM-PTL r = 0.435, P ≤ 0.001; LTA versus ROTEM-PTL r = 0.048, P = 0.180. DAPT: MEA versus ROTEM-PTL r = 0.398, P = 0.001; LTA versus ROTEM-PTL r = 0.409, P = 0.001; vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein versus ROTEM-PTL r = 0.164, P = 0.055. ROTEM platelet distinguished well between treated and healthy individuals but correlated moderately with other assays. Clinical trials are needed to investigate the ability of this new assay to identify patients at risk of adverse events.

Dose reduction, oral application, and order of intake to preserve aspirin antiplatelet effects in dipyrone co-medicated chronic artery disease patients

BACKGROUND

Dipyrone comedication in aspirin-treated patients is associated with impaired pharmacodynamic response to aspirin (high on-treatment platelet reactivity [HTPR]). Additionally, in small observational studies, an association with impaired outcome has been described. In this uncontrolled, hypothesis-generating study, we aimed to investigate strategies to prevent this drug-drug interaction in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

We analyzed pharmacodynamic response to aspirin in 80 dipyrone co-medicated CAD patients. Aspirin antiplatelet effects were measured using arachidonic acid (AA)-induced light-transmission aggregometry (LTA). Platelet reactivity was associated with daily dose, administration form, and frequency. Additionally, we conducted a time-series analysis in patients with HTPR to aspirin with re-evaluation of pharmacodynamic response to aspirin after 5 days.

RESULTS

Patients' mean age was 75.5 ± 9.8 years. Forty-three (54%) were male, 22 (27.5%) obese, and 38 (47.5%) diabetics. Baseline characteristics, cardiovascular risk factors, comorbidities, comedication, or laboratory parameters did not differ between patients with or without HTPR. HTPR to aspirin occurred in 34 out of 80 patients (42.5%). The incidence of HTPR was associated with dipyrone daily dose (< 1 g/day: HTPR 20% vs. > 3 g/day: HTPR 50%, p > 0.0001) and form of administration (i.v. 87.5% vs. oral 37.5%; p < 0.0001). A strict order of intake (aspirin 30 min prior to dipyrone) restored aspirin antiplatelet effects in all patients (HTPR before 100% vs. HTPR after 0%, p = 0.0002).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that dipyrone should be used with caution in aspirin-treated patients. If dipyrone seems indispensable, the lowest effective dose and a strict order of intake seem favorable.

Platelet function testing: dead or alive

Essentials Pharmacodynamic response to antiplatelet medication is heterogeneous. Platelet reactivity to dual antiplatelet therapy was analyzed by three platelet function assays. The prevalence of high and low platelet reactivity differed significantly between assays. Future trials are needed to determine the best assay to analyze platelet function.

SUMMARY

Background High on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) to antiplatelet medication leads to ischemic events, whereas low on-treatment platelet reactivity (LTPR) increases bleeding risk. However, various trials have failed to demonstrate superiority of tailored antiplatelet regimens (ARCTIC, ANTARCTIC, Trigger-PCI, and GRAVITAS). TROPICAL-ACS was the first study that demonstrated the benefit of tailoring antiplatelet medication according to platelet function analysis. A potential reason may be that different platelet function assays were used in these trials. Objectives To evaluate whether the results of platelet function tests are comparable. Patients/Methods We tested three commonly used assays - light transmission aggregometry (LTA), (Multiplate impedance aggregometry [MP]), and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation assay (VASP) - in 23 patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel. Results With LTA, HTPR occurred in 57% of patients; with VASP, it occurred in 43% of patients; and with MP, it occurred in 13% of patients. According to LTA, only 35% of patients were in the therapeutic window; according to VASP, 57% of patients were in the therapeutic window; and according to MP, 48% of patients were in the therapeutic window. With LTA, LTPR occurred in 9% of patients; with VASP, it occurred in 0% of patients; and with MP, it occurred in 39% of patients. Therefore, the prevalences of HTPR and LTPR differed significantly between assays. Remarkably, in 17% of patients, one assay showed HTPR whereas another showed LTPR. Conclusions The results of different platelet function assays differ substantially. Up to now, only TROPICAL-ACS had demonstrated a benefit of tailoring antiplatelet medication according to platelet function analysis. Future trials are needed to evaluate whether the platelet function assay used in TROPICAL-ACS is the 'correct' one and revives platelet function testing.

Analgesic medication with dipyrone in patients with coronary artery disease: Relation to MACCE

BACKGROUND

The non-opioid analgesic dipyrone can trigger life-threatening blood formation disorders. However, it is frequently used, as many patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) rely on non-opioid analgesics to relieve pain. In this study, we investigated the incidence of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke in CAD patients with aspirin and dipyrone comedication as compared to aspirin-alone.

METHODS

We conducted an observational pilot study in 72 CAD patients with aspirin ± dipyrone comedication in the department of cardiology of the University Hospital Düsseldorf. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. The secondary end points were the components of the primary end point. The median follow-up period was 3.2years.

RESULTS

The primary end point occurred 67% of patients in the aspirin+dipyrone group as compared to 31% in the aspirin-alone group (odds ratio [OR] 4.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7 to 12.3; P=0.0028;). All-cause mortality was significantly higher in the aspirin+dipyrone group (44%) than the aspirin-alone group (22%; OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.01 to 7.8; P=0.049). Ischemic events (MI and stroke) were more frequent in the aspirin+dipyrone group as compared to the aspirin alone group as well (OR 4, 95% CI 1.1 to 14; P=0.03).

CONCLUSION

In this hypothesis generating pilot analysis, dipyrone medication in aspirin treated coronary artery disease patients is associated with an increased cumulative incidence of death, MI or stroke as well as all-cause mortality and ischemic events. These data have to be confirmed in larger registries and trials.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01402804; Identifier: NCT01402804; Date of registration: July 25, 2011.

SeQuent Please vs. Pantera Lux drug coated balloon angioplasty in real life: Results from the Düsseldorf DCB registry

BACKGROUND

In-stent restenosis (ISR) is still a major concern in interventional cardiology. Drug coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty has been shown to be a promising option in treatment of ISR. However heterogeneity of different DCBs in suppression of neointimal growth has been described in a porcine model of coronary ISR. Therefore, in this registry analysis, we compared two frequently used paclitaxel eluting DCBs, the SeQuent Please and the Pantera Lux DCB.

METHODS

571 patients were treated with DCB angioplasty at the Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf between 2009 and 2012. Follow-up was conducted during ambulatory care at our department. Major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction [MI] and target lesion revascularization) were registered during hospitalization and follow-up.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics, prior diseases, clinical presentation, ejection fraction, procedural success and lost-for-follow-up did not differ between patients treated with the SeQuent Please and. The Pantera Lux DCB. MACE during hospital course were similar as well (Pantera Lux: 6 patients [1.6%] vs. SeQuent®Please: 3 patients [1.5%], relative risk 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.3-4.2, P=0.93). Event free survival was significantly longer in patients treated with the Pantera Lux DCB as compared to SeQuent Please DCB (Hazard ratio: 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.98; P value of log-rank test: 0.0405).

CONCLUSION

MACE free survival was longer in Pantera Lux DCB treated patients as compared to SeQuent Please treated patients. This finding has to be confirmed in future clinical trials.