Back to Search Start Over

Reasons for the Failure of Platelet Function Testing to Adjust Antiplatelet Therapy: Pharmacodynamic Insights From the ARCTIC Study.

Authors :
Lattuca B
Silvain J
Yan Y
Pouillot C
Cuisset T
Cayla G
Henry P
Diallo A
Elhadad S
Rangé G
Lhermusier T
Boueri Z
Motreff P
Carrié D
Vicaut E
Montalescot G
Collet JP
Source :
Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions [Circ Cardiovasc Interv] 2019 Nov; Vol. 12 (11), pp. e007749. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Nov 07.
Publication Year :
2019

Abstract

Background: In the ARCTIC trial (Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy Versus a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interruption Versus Continuation One Year After Stenting), treatment adjustment following platelet function testing failed to improve clinical outcomes. However, high-on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) is considered as a predictor of poor ischemic outcome. This prespecified substudy evaluated clinical outcomes according to the residual platelet reactivity status after antiplatelet therapy adjustment.<br />Methods: We analyzed the 1213 patients assigned to the monitoring arm of the ARCTIC trial in whom platelet reactivity was evaluated by the VerifyNow P2Y <subscript>12</subscript> test before percutaneous coronary intervention and during the maintenance phase (at 14 days). HPR was defined as platelet reaction unit≥235U. The primary ischemic end point, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization and the safety end point of major bleeding were assessed according to the platelet reactivity status.<br />Results: Before percutaneous coronary intervention, 35.7% of patients displayed HPR (n=419). During the acute phase, between percutaneous coronary intervention and the 14-day platelet function testing, ischemic (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.74-1.18]; P =0.58) and safety outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.22-7.59]; P =0.78) were similar in HPR and non-HPR patients. During the maintenance phase, the proportion of HPR patients (n=186, 17.4%) decreased by 56%. At 1-year, there was no difference for the ischemic end point (5.9% versus 6.0%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.40-1.58]; P =0.51) and a nonsignificant higher rate of major bleedings (2.7% versus 1.0%, hazard ratio, 2.83 [95% CI, 0.96-8.41]; P =0.06) in HPR versus non-HPR patients.<br />Conclusions: The proportion of HPR was halved after platelet function testing and treatment adjustment but without significant ischemic benefit at 1 year. HPR seems more as a modifiable risk marker than a risk factor of ischemic outcome.<br />Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00827411.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1941-7632
Volume :
12
Issue :
11
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
31694410
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007749