D-dimer and fibrinogen indicate ischemic risk in patients with atrial fibrillation after percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the association of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) and conventional markers of coagulation with ischemic and bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: In this prospective two-center observational cohort study, patients with AF and an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC) were enrolled after PCI. Blood was drawn on day 1-3 after PCI. Dilute Russell's viper venom time was used to determine lupus anticoagulant (LA) in OAC-free plasma. Anti-cardiolipin (aCL) IgG, IgM, and anti-ß2-Glycoprotein 1 (aß2GP1) IgG were analyzed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Fibrinogen (FIB), d-dimer, and prothrombin fragment 1 and 2 (PF 1 + 2) were measured in citrated plasma. The primary ischemic outcome was time to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) assessed at 6 months. Bleeding was defined according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. RESULTS: 158 patients were enrolled between May 2020 and May 2021 on day 1-3 after PCI. The median age was 78 years (interquartile range [IQR] 72-82), 111 (70%) were male, and 39 (25%) presented with acute coronary syndrome. D-dimer was elevated in 74 (47%) patients, FIB was increased in 40 (25%) and PF1 + 2 in 68 (43%) patients. 32 (20%) patients had ≥ 1 antiphospholipid antibody elevated (aPL; LA: 19 [12%], aCL: 14 [9%], aß2GP1: 2 [1%]). The presence of aPL was neither significantly associated with MACE (HR 1.46, 95% CI [0.39-5.49], p = 0.579), nor bleeding (HR 1.07 [0.30-3.84], p = 0.917). Elevated d-dimer was significantly associated with higher risk for MACE (HR 5.06 [1.09-23.41], p = 0.038) and major bleeding (HR 7.04 [1.58-31.47], p = 0.011). Elevated D-dimer increased the predictive capacity of HAS-BLED for major bleedings (HAS-BLED: AUC 0.71 [0.60-0.83] vs. HAS-BLED + d-dimer: AUC 0.79 [0.70-0.88]; p = 0.025). Increased levels of FIB were associated with higher risk for MACE (HR 3.65 [1.11-11.96], p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Biomarkers of coagulation might be suitable to assess ischemic and bleeding risk in patients with AF following PCI.

Low on-clopidogrel ADP- and TRAP-6-induced platelet aggregation in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an observational pilot study.

High on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (HPR) associates with ischemic risk in patients after percutaneous intervention (PCI). This study aimed to evaluate the association of HPR as assessed by multiple electrode aggregometry (MEA) with ischemic, thromboembolic, and bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PCI. Patients with AF and an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC) were included in this prospective cohort study on day 1-3 after PCI. Platelet aggregation [U] was analyzed by MEA. HPR and low platelet reactivity (LPR) were defined as ADP-induced aggregation ≥ 46 U and ≤ 18 U, respectively. TRAP-6-induced aggregation reference was 94-156 U. The primary outcome was time to all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 6 months. The secondary outcome was time to non-major clinically relevant bleedings or major bleedings. 159 patients were enrolled between May 2020 and May 2021. The median age was 78 years (interquartile range 72-82) and 111 (70%) were male. Median ADP- and TRAP-induced aggregation were 12 (6-17) and 49 (35-68) U, respectively. 147 (93%) patients had a low overall aggregability. HPR was detected in 2 patients (1%) and 125 (79%) had LPR. ADP-induced aggregation did not significantly associate with the primary outcome (r = 0.081, p = 0.309) but correlated inversely with bleeding risk (r = - 0.201, p = 0.011). HPR status as assessed by MEA among patients with AF after PCI was rare and overall aggregability was low. Conventional cut-off values for HPR might be inappropriate for these patients. ADP-induced aggregation might be helpful to identify patients at risk for bleeding.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The relative merits of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom invasive evaluation is planned are uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes and for whom invasive evaluation was planned to receive either ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. A major secondary end point (the safety end point) was bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4018 patients underwent randomization. A primary end-point event occurred in 184 of 2012 patients (9.3%) in the ticagrelor group and in 137 of 2006 patients (6.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.70; P = 0.006). The respective incidences of the individual components of the primary end point in the ticagrelor group and the prasugrel group were as follows: death, 4.5% and 3.7%; myocardial infarction, 4.8% and 3.0%; and stroke, 1.1% and 1.0%. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1.0% of patients assigned to prasugrel, and definite stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Major bleeding (as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale) was observed in 5.4% of patients in the ticagrelor group and in 4.8% of patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.51; P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation, the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was significantly lower among those who received prasugrel than among those who received ticagrelor, and the incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the two groups. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München; ISAR-REACT 5 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01944800.).

Validation of a P2Y12-receptor specific whole blood platelet aggregation assay.

Testing of P2Y12-receptor antagonist effects can support clinical decision-making. However, most platelet function assays use only ADP as agonist which is not P2Y12-receptor specific. For this reason P2Y12-receptor specific assays have been developed by adding prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) to reduce ADP-induced platelet activation via the P2Y1-receptor. The present study sought to evaluate a P2Y12-receptor specific assay for determination of pharmacodynamic and clinical outcomes. This study enrolled 400 patients undergoing coronary stenting after loading with clopidogrel or prasugrel. ADP-induced platelet reactivity was assessed by whole blood aggregometry at multiple time points with a standard ADP assay (ADPtest) and a P2Y12-receptor specific assay (ADPtest HS, both run on Multiplate Analyzer, Roche Diagnostics). Patients were clinically followed for 1 month and all events adjudicated by an independent committee. In total, 2084 pairs of test results of ADPtest and ADPtest HS were available showing a strong correlation between results of both assays (r = 0.96, p < 0.001). These findings prevailed in multiple prespecified subgroups (e.g., age; body mass index; diabetes). Calculated cutoffs for ADPtest HS and the established cutoffs of ADPtest showed a substantial agreement for prediction of ischemic and hemorrhagic events with a Cohen's κ of 0.66 and 0.66, respectively. The P2Y12-receptor specific ADPtest HS assay appears similarly predictive for pharmacodynamic and clinical outcomes as compared to the established ADPtest assay indicating its applicability for clinical use. Further evaluation in large cohorts is needed to determine if P2Y12-receptor specific testing offers any advantage for prediction of clinical outcome.

Clopidogrel pretreatment of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction does not affect platelet reactivity after subsequent prasugrel-loading: platelet reactivity in an observational study.

Current guidelines recommend prasugrel or ticagrelor for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Whereas available data support ticagrelor independent of pretreatment with clopidogrel, corresponding data for prasugrel are missing. Here, we investigated platelet reactivity after loading with prasugrel in clopidogrel-naïve vs. clopidogrel-pretreated patients. Forty-seven consecutive patients with STEMI referred for primary PCI were enrolled. Use of GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors and known contraindications to prasugrel served as exclusion criteria. A total of 31 patients were already treated with a loading dose of clopidogrel 600 mg by the emergency medical system before admission, while 16 patients were P2Y12 antagonist naïve. All patients received a loading dose of prasugrel 60 mg immediately before PCI. Adenosine diphosphate (ADP) induced platelet reactivity was determined by VerifyNow™ P2Y12 assay, by light transmission aggregometry (LTA) and by multiple electrode impedance aggregometry (MEIA; Multiplate™ analyser). No differences in platelet reactivity were observed at day 1 after PCI between the bolus-on-bolus treatment regimen and single prasugrel loading. Platelet reactivity was profoundly decreased to 10 [8-31] platelet reactivity unit (PRU; median [interquartile range]) in patients on clopidogrel + prasugrel vs. 9 [6-60] PRU in patients on prasugrel only (p = 0.916). Consistent results were obtained by LTA and MEIA. The proportion of patients reaching a MEIA associated with increased risk bleeding (<188 AU*min) was also similar between the two study groups. The level of platelet reactivity at day 1 after the 60 mg loading dose of prasugrel was independent of pretreatment with clopidogrel. Our results do not support withholding prasugrel in patients pretreated with clopidogrel who undergo PCI for STEMI.

Thrombelastography Compared with Multiple Impedance Aggregometry to Assess High On-Clopidogrel Reactivity in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Background: High on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (HPR) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with increased ischemic risk. It is unclear whether conventional definitions of HPR apply to patients with concomitant oral anticoagulation (OAC). This study aimed to compare the performance of multiple platelet aggregometry (MEA) and thrombelastography (TEG) to detect HPR in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and indication for an OAC. Methods: In this observational single-center cohort study, MEA and TEG were performed in patients with AF with an indication for OAC on day 1 to 3 after PCI. The primary outcome was HPR as assessed by MEA (ADP area under the curve ≥ 46 units [U]) or TEG (MAADP ≥ 47 mm), respectively. The secondary exploratory outcomes were a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke and bleeding, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, at 6 months. Results: Platelet function of 39 patients was analyzed. The median age was 78 (interquartile range [IQR] was 72−82) years. 25 (64%) patients were male, and 19 (49%) presented with acute coronary syndrome. All patients received acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel prior to PCI. Median (IQR) ADP-induced aggregation, MAADP, TRAP-induced aggregation, and MAthrombin were 9 (6−15) U, 50 (43−60) mm, 54 (35−77) U and 65 (60−67) mm, respectively. The rate of HPR was significantly higher if assessed by TEG compared with MEA (25 [64%] vs. 1 [3%]; p < 0.001). Within 6 months, four (10%) deaths, one (3%) MI and nine (23%) bleeding events occurred. Conclusion: In patients with AF undergoing PCI, the rates of HPR detected by TEG were significantly higher compared with MEA. Conventional cut-off values for HPR as proposed by consensus documents may need to be re-evaluated for this population at high ischemic and bleeding risk. Further studies are needed to assess the association with outcomes.

Antagonizing P2Y12 Receptor Inhibitors: Current and Future Options.

There are clinical scenarios where the balance between the risk of ischemic and bleeding events leads to the clinical decision to reverse the antiplatelet effect of P2Y12 receptor inhibitors. These scenarios comprise emergency situations such as active severe bleeding, urgent procedures with presumed high bleeding risk, or major trauma with (anticipated) bleeding. Supplementation of platelets has been investigated in ex vivo as well as in in vivo studies. These studies indicate that the inhibition of adenosine diphosphate-induced aggregation by the irreversibly binding thienopyridine derivatives clopidogrel and prasugrel can be reversed by administration of platelet concentrates. Supplementation of platelets in patients on prasugrel is more effective if this can be transfused > 6 hours after last dosing. Studies on the reversal effect obtained by administration of platelet concentrates in patients on ticagrelor show conflicting results. Experimental data suggest that administration of serum albumin might increase the reversal effect. A monoclonal antibody fragment (PB2452) for neutralizing ticagrelor is currently in clinical development. A recently published first in man study shows that reversal of platelet inhibition occurs within 5 minutes after start of administration and the effect is maintained for 20 to 24 hours after a 16-hour infusion which is by far the most effective approach for reversal of ticagrelor.

Temporal variability in the antiplatelet effects of clopidogrel and aspirin after elective drug-eluting stent implantation. An ADAPT-DES substudy.

Given conflicting data on temporal variability in pharmacodynamic platelet responses to clopidogrel, we investigated platelet reactivity on clopidogrel and aspirin for up to six months after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents. Platelet reactivity was determined in 102 patients before loading with clopidogrel and aspirin, and on maintenance therapy after PCI on day 1, at one month and six months by VerifyNow™ P2Y12 and Aspirin assays and by residual platelet aggregation (RPA) on light transmission aggregometry using adenosine diphosphate and arachidonic acid. By VerifyNow testing, median (interquartile range) P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) on clopidogrel were 166 (90-234), 195 (124-257), and 198 (141-252) on day 1, one month and six months after PCI, respectively (p=0.005 day 1 to 1 month, and p=0.86 1 month to 6 months). Using a cut-off of > 208 PRU, 35 % of patients had high platelet reactivity (HPR) to clopidogrel on day 1, 43 % at one month, and 46 % at six months after PCI. Between day 1 and six months after PCI, 38.2 % of patients changed clopidogrel responder status at least once. Other cut-offs and RPA yielded similar results. Platelet inhibition by aspirin was consistent over time with only five patients being characterised as having HPR. Considerable variation in individual on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity was present during both the subacute and the late phases of maintenance therapy after elective PCI. Hence, the utility of contemporary platelet function testing to guide antiplatelet therapy may be limited.