Key result
The VerifyNow P2Y12 assay showed poor correlation with thromboelastography with platelet mapping for measuring platelet inhibition (r=0.50, p=0.0026) and likely overestimates clopidogrel resistance.
Why the study?
Does the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay accurately reflect the degree of platelet inhibition compared to thromboelastography with platelet mapping in patients undergoing endovascular neurosurgery?
Population
23 patients who underwent cervical carotid artery stenting, intracranial stent-assisted aneurysm coiling, or…
Comparison
VerifyNow P2Y12 assay (PRU) vs Thromboelastography with platelet mapping (TEG-PM)
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Urges caution interpreting VerifyNow for clopidogrel monitoring; leaves open optimal assay validation.
Observational (n=23)
No
Does the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay accurately reflect the degree of platelet inhibition compared to thromboelastography with platelet mapping in patients undergoing endovascular neurosurgery?
Effect estimate: Pearson r 0.50
p-value: p=0.0026
The VerifyNow P2Y12 assay shows poor agreement with thromboelastography with platelet mapping and likely overestimates clopidogrel resistance in patients undergoing endovascular neurosurgery.
Corliss et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Endovascular neurosurgery (stenting, coiling, flow diversion) (n=23). VerifyNow P2Y12 assay (PRU) vs. Thromboelastography with platelet mapping (TEG-PM) was evaluated on Correlation between PRU and TEG-PM MA-ADP for measuring platelet inhibition (Pearson r 0.50, p=0.0026). The VerifyNow P2Y12 assay showed poor correlation with thromboelastography with platelet mapping for measuring platelet inhibition (r=0.50, p=0.0026) and likely overestimates clopidogrel resistance.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: