Key result
VerifyNow, multiplate analyzer, and VASP assays showed low concordance (kappa 0 to 0.25) with light transmission aggregometry, yielding wide variations in estimated antiplatelet resistance prevalence.
Why the study?
Do different platelet-function tests show concordance in determining the prevalence of aspirin and clopidogrel resistance in CAD patients undergoing DES therapy?
Observational (n=66)
Do different platelet-function tests show concordance in determining the prevalence of aspirin and clopidogrel resistance in CAD patients undergoing DES therapy?
Different platelet function assays show low concordance and yield highly variable estimates of aspirin and clopidogrel resistance prevalence, questioning their clinical usefulness for classifying patients.
Discordant platelet assays caution against interchangeable resistance classification in CAD; leaves open need for standardized, outcome-linked testing.
BACKGROUND: Dual therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel has emerged as the gold standard therapy for patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES). However, there is variability in patients' responses to this antiplatelet therapy, and some patients continue to show ischemic recurrences after therapy. The purpose of the study was to compare the simultaneously obtained results of various platelet-function tests for assessing the prevalence of antiplatelet resistance in coronary artery disease patients undergoing DES therapy. METHODS: A total of 66 patients were administered a loading dose of aspirin, clopidogrel, and cilostazol at least 12 hr before stenting. The results of VerifyNow (Accumetrics, USA), multiplate analyzer (Dynabyte Medical, Germany), and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein/P2Y12 (Biocytex, France) assays were compared with those of light transmission aggregometry (LTA) analysis. RESULTS: The P2Y12 reaction units and P2Y12% inhibition values obtained using the VerifyNow assay showed strong correlation (r) with the results of the LTA analysis. All tests results showed low concordance in defining the antiplatelet resistance in patients, and the degrees of agreement were as follows: 0 for aspirin reaction units; 0.25, P2Y12% inhibition; 0, aspirin-sensitive patients' identification test; 0.21, ADPtest; and 0.14, platelet reactivity index, expressed as the κ statistics. The prevalence of aspirin and clopidogrel resistances in patients resulted in remarkable variations, from 0% to 22.7% and from 9.1% to 48.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical usefulness of the different assays for the correct classification of patients in terms of antiplatelet resistance remains unclear. Further studies are required to determine the best method for correlating the occurrences of adverse ischemic events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Woo et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=66). VerifyNow, multiplate analyzer, and VASP assays vs. Light transmission aggregometry (LTA) was evaluated on Concordance in defining antiplatelet resistance compared to LTA. VerifyNow, multiplate analyzer, and VASP assays showed low concordance (kappa 0 to 0.25) with light transmission aggregometry, yielding wide variations in estimated antiplatelet resistance prevalence.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: