Clopidogrel resistance is common in patients undergoing vascular and coronary interventions.

OBJECTIVES: "Clopidogrel resistance," also defined as heightened platelet reactivity (HPR) while on clopidogrel therapy, may lead to a sub-optimal antiplatelet effect and a potential thrombotic event. There is limited literature addressing the prevalence of HPR in a large cohort of patients receiving either coronary or endovascular interventions. METHODS: In a large integrated healthcare system, patients with a P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) test were identified. HPR was defined as a PRU ≥ 200 during clopidogrel therapy. Vascular and coronary interventions were identified utilizing CPT codes, HPR prevalence was calculated, and Fischer's exact test was used to determine significance. RESULTS: From an initial cohort of 2,405,957 patients (October 2014 to January 2020), we identified 3301 patients with PRU tests administered. Of these, 1789 tests had a PRU ≥ 200 (HPR overall prevalence, 54%). We then identified 1195 patients who underwent either an endovascular or coronary procedure and had a PRU measurement. This corresponded to 935 coronary and 260 endovascular interventions. In the coronary cohort, the HPR prevalence was 54% (503/935). In the vascular cohort, the HPR prevalence was 53% (137/260); there was no difference between cohorts in HPR prevalence (p = 0.78). CONCLUSION: "Clopidogrel resistance" or HPR was found to be present in nearly half of patients with cardiovascular disease undergoing intervention. Our data suggest HPR is more common in the cardiovascular patient population than previously appreciated. Evaluating patients for HPR is both inexpensive ($25) and rapid (< 10 min). Future randomized studies are warranted to determine whether HPR has a clinically detectable effect on revascularization outcomes.

Rapid progression of carotid stenosis was rare in a large integrated healthcare system during an eight-year period.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have evaluated the rapid progression of carotid stenosis on a large scale. We created a custom software algorithm to analyze an electronic medical record database to examine the natural progression of carotid stenosis, identify a subset of patients with rapid progression, and evaluate the specific patient risk factors associated with this rapid progression. METHODS: Patients in a large integrated healthcare system who had undergone two or more carotid ultrasound scans from August 2010 to August 2018 were identified. We did not distinguish between those with an established carotid stenosis diagnosis and those with a screening ultrasound scan. We used our novel algorithm to extract data from their carotid ultrasound reports. The degrees of carotid stenosis were categorized as follows: level 1, 0% to 39%; level 2, 40% to 59%; level 3, 60% to 79%; level 4, 80% to 99%; and level 5, complete occlusion. The primary endpoint was rapid vs slow progression of carotid stenosis, with rapid progression defined as an increase of two or more levels within any 18-month period of the study, regardless of the date of the initial ultrasound scan. The association of the demographic and clinical characteristics with rapid progression was assessed by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: From a cohort of 4.4 million patients, we identified 4982 patients with two or more carotid ultrasound scans and a median follow-up period of 13.1 months (range, 0.1-93.7 months). Of the 4982 patients, 879 (17.6%) had shown progression of carotid stenosis. Only 116 patients (2.3%) had had progression to level 4 (80%-99% stenosis) from any starting level during a median of 11.5 months. A total of 180 patients (3.6%) were identified as experiencing rapid progression during a median follow-up of 9.9 months. The final multivariable analysis showed that younger age (P < .01), white race (P = .02), lower body mass index (P = .01), a diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease (P = .03), and a diagnosis of transient ischemic attack (P < .01) were associated with rapid progression. CONCLUSIONS: Using a novel algorithm to extract data from >4 million patient records, we found that rapid progression of carotid stenosis appears to be rare. Although 17.6% of patients showed any degree of progression, only 3.6% had experienced rapid progression. Among those with any disease progression, 20.5% had experienced rapid progression. Although the overall incidence of rapid progression was low, patients with any progression might warrant close follow-up, especially if they have the associated risk factors for rapid progression. The custom software algorithm might be a powerful tool for creating and evaluating large datasets.