Clopidogrel versus ticagrelor for antiplatelet therapy in transcarotid artery revascularization in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with dynamic flow reversal is a hybrid technique for operative management of carotid artery stenosis. Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended for patients undergoing TCAR; however, nonresponders to these medications may be predisposed to perioperative thromboembolic complications. Prevalent in up to 44% to 66% of patients taking clopidogrel, high on-treatment platelet reactivity may thus be responsible for a portion of adverse cerebrovascular events in TCAR. A previous single-institution study has demonstrated the use of ticagrelor as a viable alternative to clopidogrel for antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing TCAR; however, large-scale comparisons between clopidogrel and ticagrelor are needed to confirm the safety of ticagrelor outside of highly selected patients and providers. METHODS: Data from patients enrolled in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative undergoing TCAR with a perioperative antiplatelet therapy regimen including either clopidogrel or ticagrelor from January 2015 to March 2021 were analyzed and compared. Multivariable logistic regression and propensity score matching were used to evaluate the primary 30-day outcomes of stroke, major bleeding event, and combined stroke/myocardial infarction (MI)/death rate while adjusting for baseline characteristics of the patients. RESULTS: A total of 11,973 patients underwent TCAR with a dual antiplatelet therapy regimen that included clopidogrel vs 426 patients with ticagrelor. Compared with patients on clopidogrel, patients on ticagrelor were significantly more likely to have coronary artery disease (51% vs 66%; P < .001), particularly unstable angina or MI within 6 months (3% vs 9%; P < .001), and more likely to have insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (14% vs 19%; P < .001). The unadjusted 30-day rates of stroke, major bleeding, and combined stroke/MI/death were not statistically significant among both groups (1.3% vs 0.5%; P = .14, 2.4% vs 1.4%; P = .18, and 1.9% vs 1.6%; P = .71], respectively). After multivariable adjustment and propensity matching, these remained statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a substantially higher medical risk in patients undergoing TCAR with ticagrelor, 30-day rates of stroke, major bleeding events, and combined stroke/MI/death were similar between patients on ticagrelor and clopidogrel as part of adjunctive antiplatelet therapy. Randomized prospective trials, and studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up will be needed to better examine the outcome differences in TCAR between these two medications.

High on-treatment platelet reactivity is associated with poor outcomes after ischemic stroke: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: High on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) determined by platelet function assays is present in certain patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, it is unclear whether HTPR is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Our study aimed to investigate the relationship of HTPR with recurrent vascular events in ischemic stroke or TIA. METHODS: Pubmed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies from inception to January 1, 2022. Stata 17.0 software was used to calculate the risk ratio (RR). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the source of heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used when heterogeneity was present. Primary endpoint of the meta-analysis was the risk ratio of recurrent vascular events in HTPR Patients. While stroke and TIA, all-cause death, early neurological deterioration, early new ischemic lesions, and stroke severity measured by National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores at admission were also pooled. RESULTS: Thirty articles (7995 patients) were eligible including 28 cohort studies and 2 prospective case-control studies. The prevalence of HTPR varied from 5.9% to 60%. HTPR was associated with an increased risk of recurrent vascular events (RR = 2.94, 95% CI 2.04-4.23), stroke recurrence (RR = 2.05; 95% CI 1.43-2.95), and all-cause mortality (RR = 2.43; 95% CI 1.83-3.22). Subgroup analysis showed that HTPR determined by optical aggregometry, Verify-Now system and 11dh TXB2 is related to a higher risk of recurrent vascular events (RR = 3.53, 95% CI 1.51-9.40; RR = 2.16, 95% CI 1.02-4.56; RR = 3.76, 95% CI 1.51-9.40, respectively). Moreover, patients with HTPR had an increased incidence of early neurological deterioration (RR = 2.75; 95% CI 1.76-4.30) and higher NIHSS scores at admission (Mean difference 0.19, 95% CI 0.01-0.36). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrates HTPR is associated with higher risk of recurrent vascular events, early neurological deterioration and increased severity in patients with ischemic stroke and TIA. HTPR measured by platelet function assays may guide the use of antiplatelet agents in ischemic stroke and TIA.

Outcomes and strategy of tailored antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor in patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Antiplatelet drug resistance is associated with periprocedural ischemic complications in patients undergoing intravascular stent implantation. Nonresponders are subject to increased risk of stent thrombosis and in-stent stenosis, and high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) is present in up to 44% of patients taking clopidogrel, a widely used component of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Evidence points to ticagrelor as a viable alternative to overcome HTPR on clopidogrel. Studies have shown fewer thromboembolic events with ticagrelor therapy; however, results on bleeding risk are mixed, and its safety and efficacy in hybrid operative techniques have yet to be established. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid procedure to treat severe carotid stenosis. The objective of this study was to establish the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor as part of DAPT in patients undergoing TCAR and to develop a protocol to ensure adequate antithrombotic protection throughout the operative course. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively for patients undergoing TCAR on DAPT of aspirin and ticagrelor for symptomatic (≥50%) or asymptomatic (≥80%) carotid stenosis. Preoperative platelet reactivity was determined using Thromboelastography with Platelet Mapping (Haemonetics Corporation, Braintree, Mass), with adequate platelet reactivity defined as maximal amplitude produced by adenosine diphosphate <50 mm. The primary safety end point was 30-day major bleeding event rate. Primary efficacy end points were 30-day incidence of ipsilateral cerebrovascular ischemic event (stroke or transient ischemic attack), myocardial infarction, and death. Secondary end points were postoperative length of hospital stay, procedure time, and clamp/flow reversal time. RESULTS: Sixty-seven TCAR procedures with patients receiving periprocedural DAPT of ticagrelor and aspirin were performed during the study period. Patients had an average age of 79 years, and 28 (42%) were symptomatic. The mean procedure time was 45.8 ± 9.2 minutes, with a mean clamp/flow reversal time of 4.8 ± 1.5 minutes, and mean postoperative length of hospital stay of 3.1 ± 2.2 days for inpatients and 1.3 ± 0.8 days for outpatients. Technical success was achieved in all cases, with no 30-day major bleeding events and no occurrence of ipsilateral cerebrovascular ischemic event, myocardial infarction, or death. CONCLUSIONS: Initial experience with ticagrelor as part of DAPT in patients undergoing TCAR demonstrated its safety and efficacy in both symptomatic and asymptomatic disease. No bleeding events or thromboembolic complications occurred. Furthermore, a protocol to administer ticagrelor to assay for HTPR on ticagrelor and consequent medication and patient management is proposed. Ticagrelor may represent a safe and effective alternative to overcome clopidogrel nonresponsiveness in DAPT regimens for TCAR.

Platelet reactivity after receiving clopidogrel compared with ticagrelor in patients with kidney failure treated with hemodialysis: a randomized crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with kidney failure treated with maintenance hemodialysis (HD) are poor responders to clopidogrel. More beneficial platelet-inhibiting strategies in HD patients therefore are required. STUDY DESIGN: Single-center, prospective, randomized, crossover study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 25 HD patients in Seoul, Korea. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive clopidogrel (300mg loading, 75mg once daily for maintenance dose) or ticagrelor (180mg loading, 90mg twice daily for maintenance dose) for 14 days, and after a 14-day washout period, crossover treatment for another 14 days. All patients received aspirin (100mg/d). OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: Platelet function was evaluated predosing and at 1, 5, and 48 hours and 14 days after the first loading dose. During the offset phase, platelet function was assessed at 1 hour and 2, 4, and 14 days after the last dose by light transmittance aggregometry and the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay, and patients were genotyped for the CYP2C19*2 allele. Maximal extent of aggregation, inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA), P2Y12 reaction units (PRUs), and percentage of inhibition were evaluated. We performed per-protocol analysis, excluding patients who did not complete the protocol. RESULTS: 9 patients did not complete the protocol (7 patients due to adverse events; 2, nonadherence). Higher IPA occurred with ticagrelor than with clopidogrel at 1, 5, and 48 hours and 14 days after loading. By 5 hours after loading, a greater proportion of patients in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group achieved IPA>50% (75% vs 12%, respectively; P<0.05) and IPA>70% (44% vs 0%, respectively; P<0.05). Rates (slope) of onset and offset of the antiplatelet effect were faster in patients receiving ticagrelor than for those receiving clopidogrel (P<0.05). Regardless of CYP2C19*2 allele, the ticagrelor group had significantly lower PRUs at all times than the clopidogrel group. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study with a small number of patients, not a double-blind study, and not intention-to-treat analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor may result in more rapid and greater platelet inhibition than clopidogrel in patients with kidney failure receiving HD.

Assessment of on-treatment platelet reactivity at high and low shear stress and platelet activation status after the addition of dipyridamole to aspirin in the early and late phases after TIA and ischaemic stroke.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited on the ability of dipyridamole to additionally inhibit platelet function/reactivity in ischaemic cerebrovascular disease (CVD) patients on aspirin. AIMS: To assess inhibition of platelet function/reactivity and platelet activation with dipyridamole in CVD. METHODS: This prospective, observational study assessed TIA/ischaemic stroke patients before (baseline; N = 60), at 14 ±7 days (14d, N = 39) and ≥ 90 days (90d, N = 31) after adding dipyridamole to aspirin. Platelet function/reactivity at high shear stress (PFA-100® C-ADP) and low shear stress (VerifyNow® P2Y12 and Multiplate® ADP assays), and platelet activation status (% expression of CD62P, CD63 and leucocyte-platelet complexes on whole blood flow cytometry) were quantified. 'Dipyridamole-high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR)' was defined as failure to inhibit ADP-induced platelet aggregation +/- adhesion compared with the patient's baseline on aspirin monotherapy by more than twice the coefficient-of-variation of the assay after adding dipyridamole to aspirin. RESULTS: Dipyridamole-HTPR was identified in 71.4-75% of patients on PFA-100 C-ADP, 83.9-86.8% of patients on VerifyNow P2Y12, and 81.5-83.3% of patients on Multiplate ADP assays. There were no changes in CD62P/CD63 expression (P ≥ 0.18), or consistent changes in leucocyte-platelet complexes in CVD patients overall at 14d or 90d vs. baseline after commencing dipyridamole. Monocyte-platelet complexes increased in the patient subgroup with dipyridamole-HTPR at 14d and 90d on PFA-100, and at 14d on VerifyNow (P ≤ 0.04), but not in those without dipyridamole-HTPR. DISCUSSION: Additional antiplatelet effects of dipyridamole are detectable under high and low shear stress conditions with user-friendly platelet function/reactivity tests ex vivo. Increasing circulating monocyte-platelet complexes over time are associated with dipyridamole-HTPR.

CRISPLD1 rs12115090 polymorphisms alters antiplatelet potency of clopidogrel in coronary artery disease patients in Chinese Han.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel is a recommended treatment for coronary artery disease (CAD) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to reduce the rate of ischemic events and stent thrombosis. However, high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) during clopidogrel therapy for some patients may lead to outcome failure and occurrence of cardiovascular events. Amounts of studies have proved that genetic factors may contribute to HTPR. In our study, we explored the predictive value of 10 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 8 genes indicated by exome sequencing with clopidogrel efficacy. METHODS: Two hundred and forty-one Han Chinese CAD patients (mean age: 61 ±â€¯10 years) receiving dual antiplatelet therapy were recruited, among which 118 patients administered with 300 mg loading dose (LD) clopidogrel for 12-24 h and 123 subjects administered with 75 mg/day maintain dose (MD) clopidogrel for at least 5 days before discharge. The platelet reaction index (PRI) was determined to reflect clopidogrel response in the patients. Venous blood samples were drawn from all participants to extract genomic DNA. MassARRAY, Sanger sequencing and polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) were used to determine the genotypes of 10 SNPs. RESULTS: Allelic tests showed significant differences in genotype distribution between HTPR and normal on-treatment platelet reactivity (NTPR) patients for 3 SNPs including CYP2C19 rs4244285 (CYP2C19*2) (co-dominant model: p = 0.003, dominant model: p = 0.004, recessive model: p = 0.012), CRISPLD1 rs12115090 (co-dominant model: p = 0.011, dominant model: p = 0.004), and LTA4H rs11108379 (dominant model: p = 0.041). After adjusting for covariates including clinical characteristics of patients, concomitant medications and complications, we confirmed that carriers of the CYP2C19*2 showed significantly increased risk of HTPR (*2/*2 vs *1/*1: OR = 12.266, 95% CI: 1.336-112.592, p = 0.027; *1/*2 + *2/*2 vs *1/*1: OR = 2.202, 95% CI: 1.083-4.480, p = 0.029). Contrarily, carriers of the CRISPLD1 rs12115090 C allele showed significantly reduced risk of HTPR (CC vs AA: OR = 0.242, 95% CI: 0.078-0.752, p = 0.014; CA + CC vs AA: OR = 0.457, 95% CI: 0.232-0.904, p = 0.024) in Chinese CAD patients. In addition, carriers of the CYP2C19*2 allele showed significantly increased PRI (*1/*2 vs *1/*1: p = 0.008, 2/*2 vs 1/*1: p < 0.001, *2/*2 vs 1/*2: p = 0.011), while patients carrying the rs12115090 C allele showed significantly decreased PRI than the wild-type AA homozygotes (CA vs AA: p = 0.046, CA + CC vs AA: p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: CYP2C19*2 reduced the antiplatelet potency of clopidogrel and increased the risk of HTPR, while CRISPLD1 rs12115090 A>C polymorphism increased the antiplatelet potency of clopidogrel. Genetic tests, especially for CYP2C19*2 are recommended in Han Chinese CAD patients before using of clopidogrel.

High on treatment platelet reactivity to aspirin and clopidogrel in ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Emerging studies highlight high on-treatment of platelet reactivity (HTPR) as a major hindrance to the secondary prevention of cardiovascular ischemic events. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the prevalence of HTPR in patients with ischemic stroke (IS) or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and reveal a possible relation with a higher risk of cerebrovascular event recurrence. Studies were selected if they reported absolute numbers or percentages of HTPR with ASA or clopidogrel in IS/TIA patients at any time point after the cerebrovascular event onset and assessed with any type of platelet function tests. We included 52 full-text studies with a total of 8364 patients. Overall, the pooled prevalence of HTPR was 24% (95%CI: 20-27%). In subgroup analyses, the prevalence of HTPR on ASA was 23% (95%CI: 20-28%), on clopidogrel 27% (95%CI: 22-32%) and on dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) 7% (95%CI: 5-10%). The overall analysis of all studies providing data on the risk of IS/TIA recurrence, indicates that the patients with HTPR had a significantly higher risk for IS/TIA recurrence (RR=1.81, 95%CI: 1.30-2.52; p<0.001). In conclusion the present study shows a significant lower prevalence of HTPR in DAPT and an increased rate of recurrent cerebrovascular ischemic events in patients presenting HTPR.