Won-Sang Cho1, Joongyub Lee2, Eun Jin Ha1, Kyung Hyun Kim1, Jeongjun Lee3, Young Dae Cho3, Jeong Eun Kim1, Moon Hee Han3, Hyun-Seung Kang1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Prevention and Management, Inha University Hospital, School of Medicine, Inha University, Incheon, Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet premedication is widely accepted for interventional treatment of cerebral aneurysms to prevent thromboembolism. However, antiplatelet resistance sometimes limits the effectiveness of premedication. OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 groups administered low-dose prasugrel (PSG group) or clopidogrel-based tailored antiplatelet (CPG group) in terms of platelet function and procedure-related complications. METHODS: A total of 411 patients with 505 unruptured aneurysms who underwent endovascular treatment within the past 17 mo were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The PSG (225 patients with 277 aneurysms) and CPG groups (186 patients with 228 aneurysms) were administered the respective medication prior to endovascular treatment. We measure the response to the antiplatelet medication with a laboratory test. Episodes of periprocedural bleeding and thromboembolism were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of the mean P2Y12 reaction unit values (125.7 in the PSG group vs 251.0 in the CPG group; P < .001) and percentage inhibition (57.8% vs 18.7%, respectively; P < .001). Drug resistance was 29.6% per patient in the CPG group and 2.7% per patient in the PSG group. The PSG group reported 1 thromboembolism and bleeding each; meanwhile, the CPG group reported 7 thromboembolism and 3 bleeding. Compared to clopidogrel administration, prasugrel administration significantly decreased the risk of thromboembolism (weighted hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.99). However, the risk of bleeding was not significant. CONCLUSION: Prasugrel was found to be more effective in reducing periprocedural thromboembolism compared to clopidogrel.
BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet premedication is widely accepted for interventional treatment of cerebral aneurysms to prevent thromboembolism. However, antiplatelet resistance sometimes limits the effectiveness of premedication. OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 groups administered low-dose prasugrel (PSG group) or clopidogrel-based tailored antiplatelet (CPG group) in terms of platelet function and procedure-related complications. METHODS: A total of 411 patients with 505 unruptured aneurysms who underwent endovascular treatment within the past 17 mo were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The PSG (225 patients with 277 aneurysms) and CPG groups (186 patients with 228 aneurysms) were administered the respective medication prior to endovascular treatment. We measure the response to the antiplatelet medication with a laboratory test. Episodes of periprocedural bleeding and thromboembolism were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of the mean P2Y12 reaction unit values (125.7 in the PSG group vs 251.0 in the CPG group; P < .001) and percentage inhibition (57.8% vs 18.7%, respectively; P < .001). Drug resistance was 29.6% per patient in the CPG group and 2.7% per patient in the PSG group. The PSG group reported 1 thromboembolism and bleeding each; meanwhile, the CPG group reported 7 thromboembolism and 3 bleeding. Compared to clopidogrel administration, prasugrel administration significantly decreased the risk of thromboembolism (weighted hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.99). However, the risk of bleeding was not significant. CONCLUSION:Prasugrel was found to be more effective in reducing periprocedural thromboembolism compared to clopidogrel.
Authors: Samuel Pearce; Julian T Maingard; Hong Kuan Kok; Christen D Barras; Jeremy H Russell; Joshua A Hirsch; Ronil V Chandra; Ash Jhamb; Vincent Thijs; Mark Brooks; Hamed Asadi Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: F Cagnazzo; P Perrini; P-H Lefevre; G Gascou; C Dargazanli; C Riquelme; I Derraz; D di Carlo; A Bonafe; V Costalat Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: K Y Park; T Ozaki; A Kostynskyy; H Kortman; A Hilario; P Nicholson; R Agid; T Krings; V M Pereira Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 4.966