P2Y12 inhibitors for the neurointerventionalist

Prasugrel Single Antiplatelet Therapy versus Aspirin and Clopidogrel Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Flow Diverter Treatment for Cerebral Aneurysms: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The optimal antiplatelet regimen after flow diverter treatment of cerebral aneurysms is still a matter of debate. A single antiplatelet therapy might be advantageous in determined clinical scenarios. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of prasugrel single antiplatelet therapy versus aspirin and clopidogrel dual antiplatelet therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of 4 retrospective multicenter studies including ruptured and unruptured aneurysms treated with flow diversion using either prasugrel single antiplatelet therapy or dual antiplatelet therapy. Primary end points were the occurrence of any kind of procedure- or device-related thromboembolic complications and complete aneurysm occlusion at the latest radiologic follow-up (mean, 18 months). Dichotomized comparisons of outcomes were performed between single antiplatelet therapy and dual antiplatelet therapy. Additionally, the influence of various patient- and aneurysm-related variables on the occurrence of thromboembolic complications was investigated using multivariable backward logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients with 251 aneurysms were included, 90 (40.5%) in the single antiplatelet therapy and 132 (59.5%) in the dual antiplatelet therapy group. The primary outcome-procedure- or device-related thromboembolic complications-occurred in 6 patients (6.6%) of the single antiplatelet therapy and in 12 patients (9.0%) of the dual antiplatelet therapy group (P = .62; OR, 0.712; 95% CI, 0.260-1.930). The primary treatment efficacy end point was reached in 82 patients (80.4%) of the single antiplatelet therapy and in 115 patients (78.2%) of the dual antiplatelet therapy group (P = .752; OR, 1.141; 95% CI, 0.599-2.101). Logistic regression showed that non-surface-modified flow diverters (P = .014) and fusiform aneurysm morphology (P = .004) significantly increased the probability of thromboembolic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Prasugrel single antiplatelet therapy after flow diverter treatment may be as safe and effective as dual antiplatelet therapy and could, therefore, be a valid alternative in selected patients. Further prospective comparative studies are required to validate our findings.

Safety of dual antiplatelet therapy using aspirin and low-dose Prasugrel with platelet reactivity testing in flow diverter treatment of intracranial aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is standard care for intracranial stenting to prevent thrombotic complications. Clopidogrel resistance has resulted in patients receiving newer P2Y12 inhibitors like Prasugrel, which may reduce thrombotic complications but could increase haemorrhagic complications. This study, utilising platelet reactivity testing, compared thrombotic and haemorrhagic complications associated with Clopidogrel or 20 mg Prasugrel loading in patients treated with flow diverters (FD) for intracranial aneurysms.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed prospectively collected data from 225 consecutive FD procedures. All patients received aspirin. 147 cases received Clopidogrel and 82 received Prasugrel. All patients had VerifyNow testing before the procedure.

RESULTS

P2Y12 non-responders were significantly more likely to have thrombotic complications than responders and hyper-responders (7% vs. 2%, p = 0.01). Low-dose Prasugrel resulted in a significantly lower rate of non-responders when compared with Clopidogrel (7% vs. 25%, p < 0.01). We found no statistically significant difference in rates of haemorrhage between the Clopidogrel and Prasugrel groups (2.4% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.47). There were 12 complications (≤7 days) in the Clopidogrel group versus 6 in the Prasugrel group (9% vs. 7.8%, respectively, p = 0.91) and a non-significant reduction in thrombotic complications in the Prasugrel group (5.2% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.88). No significant difference was shown in long-term complications between the groups (p = 0.33).

CONCLUSION

These results support the use of platelet reactivity testing and the safety of low-dose Prasugrel for FD treatment of intracranial aneurysms.

Antiplatelets and antithrombotics in neurointerventional procedures: Guideline update

BACKGROUND

Antiplatelet and antithrombotic medication management before, during, and after neurointerventional procedures has significant practice variation. This document updates and builds upon the 2014 Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery (SNIS) Guideline 'Platelet function inhibitor and platelet function testing in neurointerventional procedures', providing updates based on the treatment of specific pathologies and for patients with specific comorbidities.

METHODS

We performed a structured literature review of studies that have become available since the 2014 SNIS Guideline. We graded the quality of the evidence. Recommendations were arrived at through a consensus conference of the authors, then with additional input from the full SNIS Standards and Guidelines Committee and the SNIS Board of Directors.

RESULTS

The management of antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents before, during, and after endovascular neurointerventional procedures continues to evolve. The following recommendations were agreed on. (1) It is reasonable to resume anticoagulation after a neurointerventional procedure or major bleeding episode as soon as the thrombotic risk exceeds the bleeding risk in an individual patient (Class I, Level C-EO). (2) Platelet testing can be useful to guide local practice, and specific approaches to using the numbers demonstrate marked local variability (Class IIa, Level B-NR). (3) For patients without comorbidities undergoing brain aneurysm treatment, there are no additional considerations for medication choice beyond the thrombotic risks of the catheterization procedure and aneurysm treatment devices (Class IIa, Level B-NR). (4) For patients undergoing neurointerventional brain aneurysm treatment who have had cardiac stents placed within the last 6-12 months, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is recommended (Class I, Level B-NR). (5) For patients being evaluated for neurointeventional brain aneurysm treatment who had venous thrombosis more than 3 months prior, discontinuation of oral anticoagulation (OAC) or vitamin K antagonists should be considered as weighed against the risk of delaying aneurysm treatment. For venous thrombosis less than 3 months in the past, delay of the neurointerventional procedure should be considered. If this is not possible, see atrial fibrillation recommendations (Class IIb, Level C-LD). (6) For patients with atrial fibrillation receiving OAC and in need of a neurointerventional procedure, the duration of TAT (triple antiplatelet/anticoagulation therapy=OAC plus DAPT) should be kept as short as possible or avoided in favor of OAC plus single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) based on the individual's ischemic and bleeding risk profile (Class IIa, Level B-NR). (7) For patients with unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations there is no indication to change antiplatelet or anticoagulant management instituted for management of another disease (Class IIb, Level C-LD). (8) Patients with symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) should continue DAPT following neurointerventional treatment for secondary stroke prevention (Class IIa, Level B-NR). (9) Following neurointerventional treatment for ICAD, DAPT should be continued for at least 3 months. In the absence of new stroke or transient ischemic attack symptoms, reversion to SAPT can be considered based on an individual patient's risk of hemorrhage versus ischemia (Class IIb, Level C-LD). (10) Patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) should receive DAPT before and for at least 3 months following their procedure (Class IIa, Level B-R). (11) In patients undergoing CAS during emergent large vessel occlusion ischemic stroke treatment, it may be reasonable to administer a loading dose of intravenous or oral glycoprotein IIb/IIIa or P2Y12 inhibitor followed by maintenance intravenous infusion or oral dosing to prevent stent thrombosis whether or not the patient has received thrombolytic therapy (Class IIb, C-LD). (12) For patients with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, anticoagulation with heparin is front-line therapy; endovascular therapy may be considered particularly in cases of clinical deterioration despite medical therapy (Class IIa, Level B-R).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the quality of evidence is lower than for coronary interventions due to a lower number of patients and procedures, neurointerventional antiplatelet and antithrombotic management shares several themes. Prospective and randomized studies are needed to strengthen the data supporting these recommendations.

Antiplatelet therapy in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: an updated meta-analysis

Antiplatelet therapy (AT) may serve to reduce the effects of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH)-induced pro-coagulant state in the cerebral circulation. Several studies, however, have delivered conflicting conclusions on the efficacy of AT post aSAH. Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central were undertaken on 27th March 2023. The primary outcome was delayed cerebral ischaemia (DCI). Secondary outcomes were symptomatic and angiographic vasospasm, good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] with scores 0-2), hemorrhagic events, and in-hospital mortality. Twenty-two studies reporting 4378 patients with aSAH were included in the meta-analysis. AT was associated with lower rates of DCI (RR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.43; 0.89), symptomatic vasospasm (RR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.46; 0.86), and moderate/severe angiographic vasospasm (RR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.65; 0.84), with no effect on hemorrhagic complications (RR=1.36, 95% CI: 0.77; 2.41). When analyzing only post-ictal use of AT, AT additionally favored rates of good functional outcomes (RR=1.18, 95% CI: 1.10; 1.26) and in-hospital mortality (RR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.39; 0.80). In the subgroup treated with cilostazol, AT was associated with lower rates of DCI (RR=0.40, 95% CI: 0.32), symptomatic vasospasm (RR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.33; 0.65), moderate/severe angiographic vasospasm (RR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.57; 0.98) and good functional outcome (RR=1.24, 95% CI: 1.08; 1.43). In the surgically treated aSAH subgroup, AT favored rates of symptomatic vasospasm (RR=0.55, 95% CI: 0.30; 0.98), moderate/severe angiographic vasospasm (RR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.54; 0.90) and good functional outcome (RR=1.23, 95% CI: 1.09; 1.41). In the endovascularly treated aSAH subgroup, AT was associated with lower rates of in-hospital mortality (RR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.41; 0.88). In aSAH patients, post-ictal AT is associated with benefits in terms of rates of DCI, vasospasm, good functional outcomes, and in-hospital mortality without an increased risk of hemorrhagic events.

Safety and Efficacy of Prasugrel Administration in Emergent Endovascular Treatment for Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease

Objective

Intracranial atherosclerosis disease (ICAD) is one of the most common causes of acute ischemic stroke. In endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute large vessel occlusion stroke-related ICAD, reocclusion of the recanalized artery due to in situ thrombosis is problematic. In this study, the safety and efficacy of prasugrel administration to avoid reocclusion of emergent EVT for ICAD was investigated.

Methods

All consecutive emergent EVTs for ICAD between September 2019 and December 2022 were included in this study. The procedures were divided into two groups as receiving periprocedural prasugrel (PSG group) or not (non-PSG group). Target vessel patency on follow-up, postprocedural intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and clinical outcome were compared between PSG and non-PSG groups.

Results

A total of 27 procedures were included in this analysis. Nineteen target vessels were patent on follow-up and eight were non-patent. Fifteen patients received prasugrel (18.75 mg: 11 cases, 11.25 mg: 4 cases), and twelve patients did not receive prasugrel. The target vessel patency rate was better in the PSG group vs. non-PSG group (100% vs. 33.3%, respectively; p = 0.0002). The postprocedural ICH rate was not different between the groups (PSG: 40.0% vs. non-PSG: 25.0%; p = 0.68), and all ICHs were asymptomatic. Good clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 3 at discharge) was more frequent in the PSG group than that in the non-PSG group (66.7% vs. 16.7%, respectively; p = 0.019).

Conclusion

Prasugrel administration was significantly associated with target vessel patency and good clinical outcome after emergent EVT for ICAD without increasing the symptomatic ICH rate. Prasugrel administration might be safe and effective to avoid reocclusion during and after emergent EVT for ICAD.

Safety and Efficacy of Cangrelor Among Three Antiplatelet Regimens During Stent-Assisted Endovascular Treatment of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysm: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Introduction

Thromboembolic events represent the most frequent complications of endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysm using stent-assisted coilling or flow diverter stents. Dual antiplatelet therapy has become the standard to prevent these but remains unstandardized. We present here a single center experience of 3 standardized antiplatelet regimens during brain aneurysm treatment, while emphasizing the use of the Cangrelor.

Method

We retrospectively reviewed data from patients treated using stent-assisted coilling or flow diverter stents from 2016 to 2021. We collected and compared safety and efficacy data within 6 months of three groups of patients corresponding to three antiplatelet standardized regimens: group T with Ticagrelor, with preprocedural preparation; group E with Eptifibatide, injected during procedure; group C with Cangrelor, injected during procedure.

Results

Data of 112 patients were analyzed and 76 belonged to group T, 21 to group E, and 15 to group C. Eleven events over the 14 recorded were adjudicated to be related to antiplatelets, their repartition did not differ between the 3 groups (p = 0.43). All symptomatic events (N = 8) were not distributed significantly differently between the 3 groups (p = 0.11) and asymptomatic events were also balanced (p = 1.00). Of these, 6 subjects had a change in the mRS score at 3–6 months. Thrombo-embolic events represented the most encountered events in the sample: 2 acute ischemic strokes were recorded in group E and 1 in group T; 1 transient ischemic stroke was noted in group E; 4 silent infarcts were found on control MRI (2 belonged to group T, 1 to group E and 1 to group C). Among 3 intracranial bleeding events, 1 was symptomatic in group C, 2 were asymptomatic in group T. On the control evaluation performed at 6 months, there was no significant difference on aneurysmal occlusion (p = 0.67).

Conclusion

This single-center retrospective study compared 3 antiplatelet regimens, finding no significant difference in the safety and efficacy in the context of endovascular treatments of unruptured aneurysm using stent or flow diverters. This study adds data for the Cangrelor use and suggests its usefulness in the field of neuro-endovascular intervention. Randomized controlled studies are warranted to confirm these results.

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors for the neurointerventionalist

Antiplatelet therapies are commonly used in neurointerventional procedures. However, specific guidelines for their use in these settings is lacking and it can often be difficult to balance the potential risks and benefits of these medications. Considering the continued growth and adoption of neurointerventional procedures, it is crucial to understand the properties of these agents in order to use them safely. Large-scale clinical trials are still needed to clarify many of these aspects for this emerging field. However, the existing literature already provides insight into which antiplatelet drugs are of benefit to the neurointerventionalist as well as their associated risks of ischemic and hemorrhagic complications. Hence, this review focuses on the applications of GPIIb/IIIA inhibitors to neurointerventional procedures.