Why the study?
Does the novel TEG 6s assay using AUC15 accurately and rapidly detect individual responses to clopidogrel compared to conventional TEG 5000?
Does the novel TEG 6s assay using AUC15 accurately and rapidly detect individual responses to clopidogrel compared to conventional TEG 5000?
TEG 6s using the AUC15 parameter is a rapid and accurate point-of-care test for assessing individual responses to clopidogrel, providing results significantly faster than traditional methods.
May support faster clopidogrel response testing with TEG 6s; leaves open outcome impact pending RCTs.
INTRODUCTION: There is potential value in testing individual response to P2Y12 inhibitors to predict ischemic and bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The aims of this study were: (1) to validate the ability of a novel point of care (POC) assay, thrombelastography (TEG) 6s, to detect changes in adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-induced whole blood clotting in volunteers and patients given clopidogrel using TEG 5000 as a reference and (2) to compare a novel, rapid parameter, area under the curve at 15 minutes (AUC15), with the traditional maximum clot amplitude (MA) in TEG 6s. METHODS: A total of 25 participants were included in whom ADP-induced clotting was measured at 4 time points: (1) 12 healthy volunteers given 600 mg of clopidogrel; (2) 12 patients with ACS given 600 mg of clopidogrel; (3) 1 healthy volunteer given 600 mg of clopidogrel on 5 separate occasions. All samples were tested using conventional TEG 5000 and the new POC TEG 6S, and a new parameter called AUC15 was compared with MA in TEG 6s. RESULTS: = 0.867, R = .936, P < .001), and the AUC15 result was available on average 13.3 minutes earlier. CONCLUSIONS: Thrombelastography 6s is a rapid, easy to use and accurate test of ADP-induced clotting using TEG 5000 as a reference. A novel parameter, AUC15, is a viable, time-saving option for this test and has potential value in personalized P2Y12 inhibitor therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Olechowski et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: