Tareq Kass-Hout1, Yazan J Alderazi1, Krishna Amuluru1, Peter Jin1, Carlos Ayala1, Charles Prestigiacomo2, Chirag D Gandhi2. 1. Department of Neurosurgery and Neuroscience, Rutgers University School of Medicine, Newark, N.J., USA. 2. Department of Neurosurgery and Neuroscience, Rutgers University School of Medicine, Newark, N.J., USA ; Department of Neurology, Rutgers University School of Medicine, Newark, N.J., USA ; Department of Radiology, Rutgers University School of Medicine, Newark, N.J., USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Platelet function testing in neurointerventional (NI) procedures is still controversial. We compared the clinical outcomes between antiplatelet responders and nonresponders based on the results of the VerifyNow (VN) testing method. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center analysis of all consecutive patients who underwent NI stenting procedures from January 2007 through July 2013 and had documented preprocedural aspirin (ASA) and clopidogrel VN assays. Patients were divided into two groups based on their responsiveness to antiplatelet. Baseline characteristics, good functional outcome measured by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days, combined procedural complication rate defined as postprocedural stroke, in-stent thrombosis, and intraoperative rupture were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Our cohort included 37 patients: 26 were in the responder group (RG) and 11 were in the nonresponder group (NRG). Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Even though the combined complication rate was similar between the two groups [NRG: 2/11 (18%) vs. RG: 2/26 (7%); p = 0.33], there was a trend for a higher rate of good functional outcome (90-day mRS: 0-2) in the RG (22/22, 100%) as compared to the NRG (8/10, 80%) (p = 0.0907). CONCLUSION: Overall, utilizing the VN antiplatelet function testing did not significantly change the clinical outcome after the NI procedures. Larger randomized trials are warranted to provide a better understanding of the utility of the antiplatelet testing in NI stenting procedures.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Platelet function testing in neurointerventional (NI) procedures is still controversial. We compared the clinical outcomes between antiplatelet responders and nonresponders based on the results of the VerifyNow (VN) testing method. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center analysis of all consecutive patients who underwent NI stenting procedures from January 2007 through July 2013 and had documented preprocedural aspirin (ASA) and clopidogrel VN assays. Patients were divided into two groups based on their responsiveness to antiplatelet. Baseline characteristics, good functional outcome measured by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days, combined procedural complication rate defined as postprocedural stroke, in-stent thrombosis, and intraoperative rupture were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Our cohort included 37 patients: 26 were in the responder group (RG) and 11 were in the nonresponder group (NRG). Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Even though the combined complication rate was similar between the two groups [NRG: 2/11 (18%) vs. RG: 2/26 (7%); p = 0.33], there was a trend for a higher rate of good functional outcome (90-day mRS: 0-2) in the RG (22/22, 100%) as compared to the NRG (8/10, 80%) (p = 0.0907). CONCLUSION: Overall, utilizing the VN antiplatelet function testing did not significantly change the clinical outcome after the NI procedures. Larger randomized trials are warranted to provide a better understanding of the utility of the antiplatelet testing in NI stenting procedures.
Authors: Chirag D Gandhi; Ketan R Bulsara; Johanna Fifi; Tareq Kass-Hout; Ryan A Grant; Josser E Delgado Almandoz; Joey English; Philip M Meyers; Todd Abruzzo; Charles J Prestigiacomo; Ciaran James Powers; Seon-Kyu Lee; Barbara Albani; Huy M Do; Clifford J Eskey; Athos Patsalides; Steven Hetts; M Shazam Hussain; Sameer A Ansari; Joshua A Hirsch; Michael Kelly; Peter Rasmussen; William Mack; G Lee Pride; Michael J Alexander; Mahesh V Jayaraman Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2014-07-23 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Grant C Sorkin; Travis M Dumont; Michael M Wach; Jorge L Eller; Maxim Mokin; Sabareesh K Natarajan; Melissa S Baxter; Kenneth V Snyder; Elad I Levy; L Nelson Hopkins; Adnan H Siddiqui Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2013-06-22 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Matthew J Price; Peter B Berger; Paul S Teirstein; Jean-François Tanguay; Dominick J Angiolillo; Douglas Spriggs; Sanjeev Puri; Mark Robbins; Kirk N Garratt; Olivier F Bertrand; Michael E Stillabower; Michael E Stillablower; Joseph R Aragon; David E Kandzari; Curtiss T Stinis; Michael S Lee; Steven V Manoukian; Christopher P Cannon; Nicholas J Schork; Eric J Topol Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-03-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Josser E Delgado Almandoz; Benjamin M Crandall; Jill M Scholz; Jennifer L Fease; Ruth E Anderson; Yasha Kadkhodayan; David E Tubman Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2013-01-12 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Helle L Nielsen; Steen D Kristensen; Sofie S Thygesen; Jette Mortensen; Susanne B Pedersen; Erik L Grove; Anne-Mette Hvas Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: Jean-Philippe Collet; Thomas Cuisset; Grégoire Rangé; Guillaume Cayla; Simon Elhadad; Christophe Pouillot; Patrick Henry; Pascal Motreff; Didier Carrié; Ziad Boueri; Loic Belle; Eric Van Belle; Hélène Rousseau; Pierre Aubry; Jacques Monségu; Pierre Sabouret; Stephen A O'Connor; Jérémie Abtan; Mathieu Kerneis; Christophe Saint-Etienne; Olivier Barthélémy; Farzin Beygui; Johanne Silvain; Eric Vicaut; Gilles Montalescot Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-11-04 Impact factor: 91.245