Key result
Platelet function tests fail to reliably predict thrombotic and bleeding risks or individualize antiplatelet therapy.
Why the study?
A critical reappraisal of the usefulness of platelet function tests in clinical cardiology for diagnosis, risk prediction, and monitoring therapy was needed.
Do platelet function tests reliably predict thrombotic or bleeding risk and allow individualization of antiplatelet therapy in clinical cardiology?
Do platelet function tests reliably predict thrombotic or bleeding risk and allow individualization of antiplatelet therapy in clinical cardiology?
Current point-of-care platelet function tests do not reliably predict thrombotic or bleeding risks or improve clinical outcomes when used to tailor antiplatelet therapy.
This review is a critical evaluation of publications in the past decade on the usefulness of platelet function tests (PFTs) in clinical cardiology, in aiding diagnosis, predicting risk, and monitoring therapy. The ideal PFT should: 1) detect baseline platelet hyperreactivity; 2) allow individualization of antiplatelet medication; 3) predict thrombotic risk; and 4) predict bleeding risk. The practicalities of clinical cardiology demand rapid, accurate, and reliable tests that are simple to operate at the bedside and available 24 h a day, 7 days a week. Point-of-care PFTs most widely evaluated clinically include PFA-100 and VerifyNow. None of these tests can reliably detect platelet hyperreactivity and thus identify a prothrombotic state. Identification of antiplatelet nonresponsiveness or hyporesponsiveness is highly test specific, and does not allow individualization of therapy. The power of PFTs in predicting thrombotic events for a given individual is variable and often modest, and alteration of antithrombotic treatment on the basis of the results of PFTs has not been shown to alter clinical outcome. PFTs in current mainstream use cannot reliably assess bleeding risk. These tests have been in use for over a decade, but the hopes raised by PFTs in clinical practice remain unfulfilled. Although physiologically relevant measurement of platelet function now is more important than ever, a critical reappraisal of available techniques in light of clinical requirements is needed. The use of native blood, global stimulus instead of individual agonists, contribution of thrombin generation by activated platelets to the test results, and establishment of a PFT therapeutic range for each antiplatelet drug should be considered and is discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gorog et al. (2013) conducted a review in Thrombotic and bleeding risk in clinical cardiology. Platelet function tests (PFTs) was evaluated. Platelet function tests, such as PFA-100 and VerifyNow, cannot reliably detect platelet hyperreactivity, predict thrombotic or bleeding risks, or individualize antiplatelet therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: