Key result
Adjusting antiplatelet regimens based on suboptimal P2Y12 reactivity values has not been proven useful in reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease.
Why the study?
Several tests quantify platelet inhibition after oral antiplatelet therapy in PAD, but guidance is needed on their use, interpretation, and relation to clinical outcomes.
Does adjusting antiplatelet therapy based on platelet function testing reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease?
Does adjusting antiplatelet therapy based on platelet function testing reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease?
Routine adjustment of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy based on platelet function testing is not currently supported by clinical trial evidence to improve outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease.
Platelet function testing should not guide P2Y12 therapy in PAD; leaves open whether future trials can define any selected role.
PURPOSE: Oral antiplatelet therapy is routinely used to prevent adverse cardiovascular events in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Several laboratory tests are available to quantify the degree of platelet inhibition following antiplatelet therapy. This article aims to provide a review of the literature surrounding platelet functional testing in patients with PAD receiving oral P2Y12 inhibitors and to offer guidance to clinicians for the use and interpretation of these tests. SUMMARY: A literature search of PubMed and the Web of Science Core Collection database was conducted. All studies that performed platelet function testing and reported clinical outcomes in patients with PAD were included. Evaluation of the data suggests that, among the available testing strategies, the VerifyNow platelet reactivity unit (PRU) test is the most widely used. Despite numerous investigations attempting to define a laboratory threshold indicating suboptimal response to antiplatelet therapy, controversy exists about which PRU value best correlates with cardiovascular outcomes (ie, mortality, stent thrombosis, etc). In the PAD literature, the most commonly used PRU thresholds are 208 or higher and 235 or higher. Nonetheless, adjusting antiplatelet regimens based on suboptimal P2Y12 reactivity values has yet to be proven useful in reducing the incidence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. This review examines platelet function testing in patients with PAD and discusses the interpretation and application of these tests when monitoring the safety and efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitors. CONCLUSION: Although platelet functional tests may be simple to use, clinical trials thus far have failed to show benefit from therapy adjustments based on test results. Clinicians should be cautioned against relying on this test result alone and should instead consider a combination of laboratory, clinical, and patient-specific factors when adjusting P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2022) conducted a review in Peripheral artery disease. Platelet function testing and therapy adjustment was evaluated on Adverse cardiovascular outcomes (e.g., mortality, stent thrombosis). Adjusting antiplatelet regimens based on suboptimal P2Y12 reactivity values has not been proven useful in reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: