Why the study?
Although high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) during DAPT correlates with adverse outcomes after PCI, its correlation in Japanese patients remains unclear.
Does high on-treatment platelet reactivity increase the risk of ischemic events in Japanese patients with coronary artery disease undergoing stent implantation on dual antiplatelet therapy?
Does high on-treatment platelet reactivity increase the risk of ischemic events in Japanese patients with coronary artery disease undergoing stent implantation on dual antiplatelet therapy?
High on-treatment platelet reactivity (PRU > 221) is significantly associated with an increased risk of 1-year ischemic events in Japanese patients undergoing PCI on dual antiplatelet therapy.
May aid risk stratification in Japanese PCI patients on DAPT; leaves open whether PRU-guided therapy adjustment improves outcomes.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nishikawa et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: