A Multicenter Cohort Comparison Study of the Safety, Efficacy, and Cost of Ticagrelor Compared to Clopidogrel in Aneurysm Flow Diverter Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications are among the most feared adverse events in the endovascular treatment of aneurysms, and this is particularly the case for flow diverter devices. Dual antiplatelet therapy has become standard of care; however, the safety, efficacy, and cost profiles of newer antiplatelet agents are not well characterized in the neurovascular context. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety, efficacy, and cost of one of these newer agents, ticagrelor, to the most frequently used agent, clopidogrel. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective, cohort comparison study design of consecutively treated aneurysms with flow diverter embolization device and treated with either ticagrelor or clopidogrel was performed. Data were collected on patient demographics and risk factors, procedural details, antiplatelet treatment regime, complications, and angiographic and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty patients undergoing flow diverter device deployment and treatment with ticagrelor were compared to 53 patients undergoing flow diversion and treatment with clopidogrel. The patients' age, sex, smoking status, aneurismal morphology and size, and procedural details did not differ between the 2 groups; neither did the rate of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications, angiographical, and functional outcomes. Ticagrelor was more expensive when compared to clopidogrel. CONCLUSION: Ticagrelor is a safe and effective agent for prevention of thromboembolic complications following flow diverter deployment when compared to clopidogrel. However, ticagrelor remains significantly more expensive than clopidogrel, and, thus, we would advise ticagrelor be reserved for patients who are hyporesponsive to clopidogrel.

Assessment of Dual-Antiplatelet Regimen for Pipeline Embolization Device Placement: A Survey of Major Academic Neurovascular Centers in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Flow diversion with the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) currently is adopted for treatment of a variety of intracranial aneurysms. The elevated risk of thromboembolic complications associated with the device necessitates the need for administration of antiplatelet agents. We sought to assess current dual-antiplatelet therapy practices patterns and their associated costs after PED placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online questionnaire that assessed dual-antiplatelet regimens after flow diversion for treatment of intracranial aneurysms was developed and disseminated to 80 neurosurgeons at major academic cerebrovascular centers. Pricing information from 2 of the largest prescription payers in Massachusetts was used to calculate the monthly cost of these agents. RESULTS: Twenty-six responses (32.5%) were received. All respondents (100%) affirmed using clopidogrel and aspirin dual-antiplatelet therapy as a first-line regimen. Twenty-three (88.5%) routinely use platelet function testing. Eleven respondents (42.3%) each identified that they administer aspirin/ticagrelor and aspirin/prasugrel to clopidogrel hypo- or nonresponders. For uninsured patients, prasugrel was found to have the highest cumulative monthly cost ($471), followed by ticagrelor ($396), clopidogrel ($149), and ticlopidine ($110). CONCLUSIONS: Significant heterogeneity in dual-antiplatelet regimens after PED placement and associated costs exists at major academic neurovascular centers. The most commonly used first-line dual-antiplatelet regimen consists of aspirin and clopidogrel. Two major alternate protocols involving ticagrelor and prasugrel are administered to clopidogrel hyporesponders. The optimal dual-antiplatelet regimen for patients with cerebrovascular conditions has not been established, given limited prospective data within the neurointerventional literature.