Comparison of Three Tests to Distinguish Platelet Reactivity in Patients with Renal Impairment during Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

Long Zhe Guo, Moo Hyun Kim, Tae Hyung Kim, Jong Seong Park, Enze Jin, Chang Heon Shim, Sun Young Choi, Victor L. Serebruany

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Clopidogrel and aspirin combination remains a cornerstone for modern dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following coronary stenting. Although monitoring is not currently recommended, certain high-risk cohorts may benefit from tailoring antiplatelet options to reduce thrombotic or/and hemorrhagic risks. Patients with diminished estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) are prone to both vascular occlusions and bleeding events in whom monitoring may be especially advantageous. We compared the residual platelet reactivity assessed by 3 conventional tests during the maintenance antiplatelet therapy dependent on eGFR. Methods: Post-stenting patients (n = 701) receiving aspirin 100 mg/daily and clopidogrel 75 mg/daily were prospectively enrolled in the cross-sectional single-center study. Patients were dichotomized into 5 groups: eGFR >90, 60-89, 30-59, 2, and dialysis. Platelet reactivity by VerifyNow™, light transmittance aggregometry (LTA), and Multiplate analyzer by multiple electrode platelet aggregometry (MEA) assays together with eGFR calculations were done simultaneously at 1 month after coronary stenting. Results: VerifyNow assay distinguished residual platelet reactivity dependent on eGFR deterioration (191 ± 72 vs. 216 ± 78 vs. 248 ± 80 vs. 264 ± 70 vs. 317 ± 96 PRU; p <0.001). In contrast, LTA (34.3 ± 18.1 vs. 34.7 ± 18.1 vs. 38.0 ± 16.6 vs. 33.0 ± 17.3 vs. 34.1 ± 29.3%; p = 0.242), or MEA (37.2 ± 19.6 vs. 33.8 ± 18.4 vs. 38.6 ± 21.4 vs. 36.5 ± 20.5 vs. 38.3 ± 28.3 AU/min; p = 0.086) failed to triage platelet reactivity in renal patients. Agreement among assays to identify patients with impaired platelet reactivity and eGFR during antiplatelet therapy was low. The multivariable regression analyses confirmed the VerifyNow advantage, since the differences in the platelet reactivity were highly significant for all renal impairment (RI) groups. In contrast, LTA did not distinguish RI patients, and for the MEA, only RI5 (dialysis) cohort exhibit borderline significant decline of residual platelet reactivity. Conclusion: Among 3 assays, VerifyNow was capable to reliably triage residual platelet reactivity in post-stenting DAPT patients dependent on the gradual decline of eGFR during therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin. These data should be confirmed in a large validation longitudinal trial, and may justify future platelet activity monitoring for potential regimen/dose adjustment in high-risk patients. The clinical implications of these data are still unclear, but may give an indication as to whether or when DAPT dose adjustment will become a reality.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalNephron
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Feb 26 2016

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Nephrology
  • Urology
  • Physiology (medical)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of Three Tests to Distinguish Platelet Reactivity in Patients with Renal Impairment during Dual Antiplatelet Therapy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this