N Flechtenmacher1, F Kämmerer1, R Dittmer2, U Budde2, P Michels3, J Röther3, B Eckert4. 1. From the Departments of Neuroradiology (N.F., F.K., B.E.). 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine (R.D., U.B.), Medilys Laboratory Company, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Neurology (P.M., J.R.), Asklepios Klinik Altona, Hamburg, Germany. 4. From the Departments of Neuroradiology (N.F., F.K., B.E.) b.eckert@asklpios.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clopidogrel resistance is blamed for thromboembolic complications in neurovascular stent placement. Platelet-function assays are weakly standardized. The aim of this study was to correlate the results of 3 different platelet-inhibition measurements (from light transmission aggregometry, the VerifyNow P2Y12 test, and the Multiplate analyzer) and their relation to periprocedural thromboembolic complications in elective neurovascular stent placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clopidogrel resistance was determined on the day of the intervention according to predefined platelet reactivity cutoff values. All 3 tests were performed in 103 consecutive neurovascular stent-placement procedures in 97 patients (extracranial, n = 77; intracranial, n = 26). RESULTS: The clopidogrel resistance rates were 47.6% (light transmission aggregometry), 50.5% (VerifyNow), and 35.9% (Multiplate). In 67% of the patients, clopidogrel resistance was present according to at least one method. The correlations of qualitative results that classified a patient as responsive or resistant to clopidogrel were 67.9% for light transmission aggregometry with VerifyNow, 77.7% for light transmission aggregometry with the Multiplate, and 66% for VerifyNow with the Multiplate. Periprocedural thromboembolic complications (n = 9) occurred more frequently in patients who were determined by all 3 methods to be clopidogrel resistant. The difference was most pronounced with light transmission aggregometry (complication rates, 14.4% [clopidogrel-resistant patients] vs 3.7% [clopidogrel-responsive patients]). Sensitivity and specificity rates of clopidogrel resistance in relation to embolic complications were, respectively, 78% and 55% for light transmission aggregometry, 67% and 51% for VerifyNow, and 44% and 67% for the Multiplate. CONCLUSIONS: Clopidogrel resistance is a frequent finding in patients who undergo neurovascular stent placement. The correlations among the different testing methods are only modest and differ considerably. Light transmission aggregometry results seem to correlate with thromboembolic complications more accurately than with VerifyNow and Multiplate point-of-care methods.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Clopidogrel resistance is blamed for thromboembolic complications in neurovascular stent placement. Platelet-function assays are weakly standardized. The aim of this study was to correlate the results of 3 different platelet-inhibition measurements (from light transmission aggregometry, the VerifyNow P2Y12 test, and the Multiplate analyzer) and their relation to periprocedural thromboembolic complications in elective neurovascular stent placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Clopidogrel resistance was determined on the day of the intervention according to predefined platelet reactivity cutoff values. All 3 tests were performed in 103 consecutive neurovascular stent-placement procedures in 97 patients (extracranial, n = 77; intracranial, n = 26). RESULTS: The clopidogrel resistance rates were 47.6% (light transmission aggregometry), 50.5% (VerifyNow), and 35.9% (Multiplate). In 67% of the patients, clopidogrel resistance was present according to at least one method. The correlations of qualitative results that classified a patient as responsive or resistant to clopidogrel were 67.9% for light transmission aggregometry with VerifyNow, 77.7% for light transmission aggregometry with the Multiplate, and 66% for VerifyNow with the Multiplate. Periprocedural thromboembolic complications (n = 9) occurred more frequently in patients who were determined by all 3 methods to be clopidogrel resistant. The difference was most pronounced with light transmission aggregometry (complication rates, 14.4% [clopidogrel-resistant patients] vs 3.7% [clopidogrel-responsive patients]). Sensitivity and specificity rates of clopidogrel resistance in relation to embolic complications were, respectively, 78% and 55% for light transmission aggregometry, 67% and 51% for VerifyNow, and 44% and 67% for the Multiplate. CONCLUSIONS:Clopidogrel resistance is a frequent finding in patients who undergo neurovascular stent placement. The correlations among the different testing methods are only modest and differ considerably. Light transmission aggregometry results seem to correlate with thromboembolic complications more accurately than with VerifyNow and Multiplate point-of-care methods.
Authors: Michael A Gaglia; Rebecca Torguson; Rajbabu Pakala; Zhenyi Xue; Gabriel Sardi; William O Suddath; Kenneth M Kent; Lowell F Satler; Augusto D Pichard; Ron Waksman Journal: J Interv Cardiol Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jessica L Mega; Willibald Hochholzer; Andrew L Frelinger; Michael J Kluk; Dominick J Angiolillo; Dean J Kereiakes; Steven Isserman; William J Rogers; Christian T Ruff; Charles Contant; Michael J Pencina; Benjamin M Scirica; Janina A Longtine; Alan D Michelson; Marc S Sabatine Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stephen D Wiviott; Eugene Braunwald; Carolyn H McCabe; Gilles Montalescot; Witold Ruzyllo; Shmuel Gottlieb; Franz-Joseph Neumann; Diego Ardissino; Stefano De Servi; Sabina A Murphy; Jeffrey Riesmeyer; Govinda Weerakkody; C Michael Gibson; Elliott M Antman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-11-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S Müller-Schunk; J Linn; N Peters; M Spannagl; M Deisenberg; H Brückmann; T E Mayer Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-01-25 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jessica L Mega; Sandra L Close; Stephen D Wiviott; Lei Shen; Richard D Hockett; John T Brandt; Joseph R Walker; Elliott M Antman; William L Macias; Eugene Braunwald; Marc S Sabatine Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Stefan K James; Robert F Storey; Nardev S Khurmi; Steen Husted; Matyas Keltai; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Juan Maya; Joao Morais; Renato D Lopes; Jose C Nicolau; Prem Pais; Dimitar Raev; Jose L Lopez-Sendon; Susanna R Stevens; Richard C Becker Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J T Fifi; C Brockington; J Narang; W Leesch; S L Ewing; H Bennet; A Berenstein; J Chong Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Hassan Akbari; Matthew R Reynolds; Yasha Kadkhodayan; Dewitte T Cross; Christopher J Moran Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Bowen Jiang; Matthew T Bender; Erick M Westbroek; Jessica K Campos; Li-Mei Lin; Risheng Xu; Rafael J Tamargo; Judy Huang; Geoffrey P Colby; Alexander L Coon Journal: Stroke Vasc Neurol Date: 2018-04-21