Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2016 Jul;39(7):385-90.
doi: 10.1002/clc.22540. Epub 2016 Jun 29.

Validation of Three Platelet Function Tests for Bleeding Risk Stratification During Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following Coronary Interventions

Affiliations
Observational Study

Validation of Three Platelet Function Tests for Bleeding Risk Stratification During Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following Coronary Interventions

Moo Hyun Kim et al. Clin Cardiol. 2016 Jul.

Abstract

Background: Although low platelet reactivity (LPR) is commonly detected during bleeding, a validated threshold for reliable DAPT bleeding risk stratification is lacking. We tested the diagnostic utility of 3 conventional platelet-activity assays to define the predictive value (if any) of LPR for bleeding.

Hypothesis: We hypothesized whether one of these tests be better than any others for predicting bleeding events.

Methods: Patients (n = 800) following drug-eluting stent implantation received DAPT. Bleeding was assessed by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) classification and events were collected for 1 year after stenting. Platelet reactivity was measured by light transmittance aggregometry (LTA), VerifyNow, and multiple electrode aggregometry (MEA). The LPR values for bleeding event stratification were defined as ≤15% for LTA, ≤139 PRU for VerifyNow, and ≤25 U for MEA.

Results: Bleeding events occurred in 18 patients (2.3%). All tests distinguished LPR as an independent predictor for bleeding by univariate analysis ([HR]: 5.00, 95% [CI]: 1.8-14.0, P = 0.002 for LTA; HR: 21.3, 95% CI: 6.2-73.0, P < 0.0001 for VerifyNow; and HR: 7.4, 95% CI: 2.2-25.5, P = 0.002 for MEA). Multivariate analysis revealed that only VerifyNow (HR: 11.5, 95% CI: 2.9-45.7, P < 0.0004) remained an independent predictor for bleeding. However, the specificity (81.5%, 60.2%, and 81.7%, respectively) and sensitivity (61.1%, 83.3%, and 83.2%, respectively) of all 3 tests were quite low.

Conclusions: Among 3 conventional platelet-activity assays, VerifyNow was better than LTA or MEA for triaging future bleeding risks. However, all 3 tests failed to reliably predict future bleeding.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Individual data plots of residual platelet reactivity dependent on bleeding. Lines represent mean and SD. Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
ROC curve analysis of 1‐month DAPT for predicting 1‐year bleeding event for 3 laboratory tests and HAS‐BLED score. Abbreviations: DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; HAS‐BLED, hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile INR, elderly, drugs or alcohol; INR, international normalized ratio; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio‐Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2541–2619. - PubMed
    1. Montalescot G, Brieger D, Dalby AJ, et al. Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting: a review of the evidence. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:832–847. - PubMed
    1. Steg PG, Huber K, Andreotti F, et al. Bleeding in acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary interventions: position paper by the Working Group on Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:1854–1864. - PubMed
    1. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research . NDA 204–886. Medical reviews on Vorapaxar. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2014/204886Orig1s000MedR.pdf. Published April 25, 2014. Accessed May 15, 2015.
    1. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al; TRITON‐TIMI 38 Investigators. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2001–2015. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources