Key result
Flow cytometry-based measurement of platelet fibrinogen binding identified different patients as nonresponders to P2Y12 inhibitors compared to ADP-induced aggregation-based assays like VerifyNow.
Why the study?
Does flow cytometry-based assessment of platelet reactivity using non-ADP agonists identify suboptimal P2Y12 inhibition missed by VerifyNow in patients on P2Y12 inhibitors?
Population
72 patients on P2Y12 inhibitors
Comparison
Measurement of platelet reactivity using flow… vs VerifyNow assay
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Suggests VerifyNow may miss nonresponders; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Observational (n=72)
Does flow cytometry-based assessment of platelet reactivity using non-ADP agonists identify suboptimal P2Y12 inhibition missed by VerifyNow in patients on P2Y12 inhibitors?
Flow cytometry using thrombin or collagen receptor agonists identifies patients with suboptimal platelet inhibition who appear responsive on standard ADP-based assays like VerifyNow.
Leunissen et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Patients on P2Y12 inhibitors (n=72). Flow cytometry-based platelet reactivity testing vs. VerifyNow (ADP-induced aggregation-based assay) was evaluated on Platelet reactivity (fibrinogen binding, secretion, aggregation) after stimulation of different pathways. Flow cytometry-based measurement of platelet fibrinogen binding identified different patients as nonresponders to P2Y12 inhibitors compared to ADP-induced aggregation-based assays like VerifyNow.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: