| Literature DB >> 28565991 |
L Ian Taylor1, James C Dickerson1, Robert J Dambrino1, M Yashar S Kalani2, Philipp Taussky2, Chad W Washington3, Min S Park2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Although the use of dual antiplatelet therapy with flow diversion is recommended and commonplace, the testing of platelet inhibition is more controversial. METHODS The authors reviewed the medical literature to establish and describe the physiology of platelet adhesion, the pharmacology of antiplatelet medications, and the mechanisms of the available platelet function tests. Additionally, they present a review of the pertinent neurointerventional and interventional cardiology literature. RESULTS Competing reports in the neurointerventional literature argue for and against the use of routine platelet function testing, with adjustments to the dosage or medications based on the results. The interventional cardiology literature has also wrestled with this dilemma after percutaneous coronary interventions, with conflicting reports of the benefits of platelet function testing. CONCLUSIONS Despite its prevalence, the benefits of platelet function testing prior to flow diversion are unproven. This practice will likely remain controversial until the level of evidence improves through more rigorous testing and reporting.Keywords: ADP = adenosine diphosphate; APT = antiplatelet therapy; FDS = flow-diverting stent; GP-IIb/IIIa = glycoprotein IIb/IIIa; GRAVITAS = Gauging Responsiveness with A VerifyNow Assay—Impact on Thrombosis and Safety; LTA = light transmission aggregometry; PED = Pipeline embolization device; PFT = platelet function testing; PRU = P2Y12 reaction unit; TEG = thromboelastography; TXA2 = thromboxane A2; dual antiplatelet therapy; flow diversion; percutaneous coronary interventions; platelet function testing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28565991 DOI: 10.3171/2017.3.FOCUS1746
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neurosurg Focus ISSN: 1092-0684 Impact factor: 4.047