Senka Runjaic1, Jerah D Nordeen1, Matthew W Soto-Arenall1, Gretchen S Johns2, David Miller3, Benjamin Brown3, William D Freeman4. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 3. Neuroendovascular Division, Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 4. Departments of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Critical Care, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of intensified antiplatelet therapy guided by VerifyNow assay P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) reported values in patients undergoing neuroendovascular procedures. METHODS: An observational, retrospective review was conducted at a single academic tertiary referral center and comprehensive stroke center from December 1, 2012, to August 31, 2014. The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of thromboembolic complications stratified by preprocedural PRU values. Secondary outcomes were assessed by investigating whether the goal PRU value of 190 or less is sufficient to reduce thromboembolic complications on the day of the procedure, and 30- and 90-day postprocedure. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of complications in the two groups (two events in the group with preprocedural PRU values of 190 or more versus seven events in the group with preprocedural PRU values of less than 190, p = 0.668). Furthermore, the rates of thromboembolic events by 90 days were not significantly different in the two groups (one event in the group with preprocedural PRU ≥ 190 versus four events in patients with preprocedural PRU < 190, p = 1). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of hemorrhagic events in the two groups by 90-day postprocedure (one versus three events, p = 0.558). CONCLUSION: The observed rate of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications in patients with preprocedural PRU values of less than 190 was not significantly different from the rate observed in patients with preprocedural PRU values of greater than 190. Sources of funding: No external funding used.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of intensified antiplatelet therapy guided by VerifyNow assay P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) reported values in patients undergoing neuroendovascular procedures. METHODS: An observational, retrospective review was conducted at a single academic tertiary referral center and comprehensive stroke center from December 1, 2012, to August 31, 2014. The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of thromboembolic complications stratified by preprocedural PRU values. Secondary outcomes were assessed by investigating whether the goal PRU value of 190 or less is sufficient to reduce thromboembolic complications on the day of the procedure, and 30- and 90-day postprocedure. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of complications in the two groups (two events in the group with preprocedural PRU values of 190 or more versus seven events in the group with preprocedural PRU values of less than 190, p = 0.668). Furthermore, the rates of thromboembolic events by 90 days were not significantly different in the two groups (one event in the group with preprocedural PRU ≥ 190 versus four events in patients with preprocedural PRU < 190, p = 1). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of hemorrhagic events in the two groups by 90-day postprocedure (one versus three events, p = 0.558). CONCLUSION: The observed rate of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications in patients with preprocedural PRU values of less than 190 was not significantly different from the rate observed in patients with preprocedural PRU values of greater than 190. Sources of funding: No external funding used.
Authors: Nicoline J Breet; Jochem W van Werkum; Heleen J Bouman; Johannes C Kelder; Henk J T Ruven; Egbert T Bal; Vera H Deneer; Ankie M Harmsze; Jan A S van der Heyden; Benno J W M Rensing; Maarten J Suttorp; Christian M Hackeng; Jurriën M ten Berg Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-02-24 Impact factor: 56.272
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: J E Delgado Almandoz; B M Crandall; J M Scholz; J L Fease; R E Anderson; Y Kadkhodayan; D E Tubman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-07-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jerah D Nordeen; Alden V Patel; Robert M Darracott; Gretchen S Johns; Philipp Taussky; Rabih G Tawk; David A Miller; William D Freeman; Ricardo A Hanel Journal: J Vasc Interv Neurol Date: 2013-06
Authors: Matthew J Price; Dominick J Angiolillo; Paul S Teirstein; Elizabeth Lillie; Steven V Manoukian; Peter B Berger; Jean-François Tanguay; Christopher P Cannon; Eric J Topol Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-08-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David A Payne; Chris I Jones; Paul D Hayes; Matthew M Thompson; Nicholas J London; Peter R Bell; Alison H Goodall; A Ross Naylor Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-03-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ricardo A Hanel; Philipp Taussky; Tanya Dixon; David A Miller; Merlie Sapin; Jerah D Nordeen; Rabih G Tawk; Ramon Navarro; Gretchen Johns; William D Freeman Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 5.836