Thrombosis research · 2002
PFA-100 and flow cytometry: can they challenge aggregometry to assess antiplatelet agents, other than GPIIbIIIa blockers, in coronary angioplasty?
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hézard Nathalie, Metz Damien, Nazeyrollas Pierre, Droullé Chantal, Potron Gérard, Nguyen Philippe
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Platelet response to inhibitors varies widely, leading to a higher risk of abrupt closure events in insufficiently treated-coronary heart disease patients. The aim of this study was to compare, in patients under various antiplatelet regimens, three platelet function assays: aggregometry, PFA-100 and flow cytometry. These assays stand for available tests, as "ready-to-use" device (PFA-100) and sophisticated assay (cytometry). We chose the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention as a standardized procedure to determine which test was appropriate to detect the effect of (1) an aspirin bolus in patients under long-term aspirin treatment, and (2) ticlopidin in case of stent implantation.
METHODS: Fifty patients under oral aspirin treatment were randomized to receive a bolus of 500 mg aspirin before angioplasty (n=25). Ticlopidin was given at a 500 mg loading dose in the case of stent implantation (n=38). Platelet function was assessed before, at 2 and 24 h after angioplasty.
RESULTS: Considering aspirin antiplatelet effect, the following was observed: (1) a lack of further inhibition after the bolus whatever assay was used and (2) a disagreement between aggregometry and PFA-100 to classify patients as being poor or good aspirin responders (kappa were 0.11 and 0.28 between ADP 4 or 6 microM aggregation, respectively, and PFA-100). Another finding was the good performance of flow cytometry, which evaluated GPIIbIIIa activation, and aggregometry, to detect ticlopidin the day after the loading dose. In contrast, PFA-100 was insensitive to ticlopidin.
CONCLUSION: Current assays are not interchangeable to monitor antiplatelet treatment in daily practice.
METHODS: Fifty patients under oral aspirin treatment were randomized to receive a bolus of 500 mg aspirin before angioplasty (n=25). Ticlopidin was given at a 500 mg loading dose in the case of stent implantation (n=38). Platelet function was assessed before, at 2 and 24 h after angioplasty.
RESULTS: Considering aspirin antiplatelet effect, the following was observed: (1) a lack of further inhibition after the bolus whatever assay was used and (2) a disagreement between aggregometry and PFA-100 to classify patients as being poor or good aspirin responders (kappa were 0.11 and 0.28 between ADP 4 or 6 microM aggregation, respectively, and PFA-100). Another finding was the good performance of flow cytometry, which evaluated GPIIbIIIa activation, and aggregometry, to detect ticlopidin the day after the loading dose. In contrast, PFA-100 was insensitive to ticlopidin.
CONCLUSION: Current assays are not interchangeable to monitor antiplatelet treatment in daily practice.