Why the study?
Patients on antithrombotic therapy after PCI are at risk for bleeding and recurrent ischemia, motivating the evaluation of routine and tPA ROTEM results in this population.
Does ROTEM monitoring identify anticoagulant use and predict bleeding or ischemic events in high-risk patients on dual antithrombotic therapy after PCI?
Cohort (n=535)
No
Does ROTEM monitoring identify anticoagulant use and predict bleeding or ischemic events in high-risk patients on dual antithrombotic therapy after PCI?
Absolute Event Rate: 68% vs 62%
p-value: p=0.030
ROTEM clotting time can accurately identify anticoagulant use and may help predict bleeding risk in high-risk patients on DAPT after PCI.
ROTEM CT may flag bleeding risk on DAPT post-PCI; leaves open whether it guides antithrombotic decisions in high-risk cohorts.
Aims: Patients using antithrombotic drugs after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at risk for bleeding and recurrent ischemia. We aimed to explore routine and tissue plasminogen activated (tPA) ROTEM results in a post-PCI population on dual antithrombotic treatment. Methods and Results: In this prospective cohort, 440 patients treated with double antithrombotic therapy after recent PCI and with ≥3 risk factors for either ischemic or bleeding complications were included and compared with a control group (n = 95) consisting of perioperative patients not using antithrombotic medication. Laboratory assessment, including (tPA) ROTEM, was performed one month post-PCI and bleeding/ischemic complications were collected over a five-month follow-up. Patients were stratified by antithrombotic regimen consisting of a P2Y12 inhibitor with either aspirin (dual antiplatelet therapy; DAPT, n = 323), a vitamin K antagonist (VKA, n = 69) or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC, n = 48). All post-PCI patients had elevated ROTEM clot stiffness values, but only the DAPT group additionally presented with a decreased fibrinolytic potential as measured with tPA ROTEM. Patients receiving anticoagulants had prolonged clotting times (CT) when compared to the control and DAPT group; EXTEM and FIBTEM CT could best discriminate between patients (not) using anticoagulants (AUC > 0.97). Furthermore, EXTEM CT was significantly prolonged in DAPT patients with bleeding complications during follow-up (68 [62–70] vs. 62 [57–68], p = 0.030). Conclusion: ROTEM CT has high potential for identifying anticoagulants and tPA ROTEM could detect a diminished fibrinolytic potential in patients using DAPT. Furthermore, the ability of EXTEM CT to identify patients at risk for bleeding may be promising and warrants further research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hulshof et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease post-percutaneous coronary intervention (n=535). Rotational Thromboelastometry (ROTEM) vs. Non-bleeders was evaluated on Clinically relevant bleeding (BARC type ≥2) (p=0.030).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: