Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2021
Vorapaxar as an Alternative for Ticagrelor Resistance in Neuroendovascular Intervention.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Mamaril-Davis James C, Aguilar-Salinas Pedro, Brasiliense Leonardo B, Cosgrove Richard, Dawod Judy, Dumont Travis M, El-Ghanem Mohammad
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Perioperative dual-antiplatelet therapy for flow diversion limits thromboembolic complications. However, resistance to dual-antiplatelet therapy medications remains a concern for neuroendovascular intervention. To date, there is no standardized approach for resistance to ADP receptor antagonists.
METHODS: We report a case of ticagrelor resistance for flow diversion of an intracranial aneurysm treated with vorapaxar, as well as a narrative review of the literature for previous cases of ticagrelor resistance.
RESULTS: Flow diversion with the Pipeline embolization device was deployed for a left internal carotid artery blister aneurysm and bilateral internal carotid artery dissecting pseudoaneurysms. The patient had 3 thromboembolic complications while on dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor or prasugrel, leading to transition of antiplatelet therapy to vorapaxar. At 84 days follow-up, the patient was fully recovered with complete occlusion of the aneurysms.
CONCLUSION: Our case suggests that vorapaxar is a promising alternative for patients with ticagrelor resistance in flow diversion-treated intracranial aneurysms. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to elucidate the safety and efficacy of vorapaxar in neuroendovascular procedures.
METHODS: We report a case of ticagrelor resistance for flow diversion of an intracranial aneurysm treated with vorapaxar, as well as a narrative review of the literature for previous cases of ticagrelor resistance.
RESULTS: Flow diversion with the Pipeline embolization device was deployed for a left internal carotid artery blister aneurysm and bilateral internal carotid artery dissecting pseudoaneurysms. The patient had 3 thromboembolic complications while on dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor or prasugrel, leading to transition of antiplatelet therapy to vorapaxar. At 84 days follow-up, the patient was fully recovered with complete occlusion of the aneurysms.
CONCLUSION: Our case suggests that vorapaxar is a promising alternative for patients with ticagrelor resistance in flow diversion-treated intracranial aneurysms. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to elucidate the safety and efficacy of vorapaxar in neuroendovascular procedures.