4.5 Article

Predictive value of post-treatment platelet reactivity for occurrence of post-discharge bleeding after non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. Shifting from antiplatelet resistance to bleeding risk assessment?

期刊

EUROINTERVENTION
卷 5, 期 3, 页码 325-329

出版社

EUROPA EDITION
DOI: 10.4244/51

关键词

Angioplasty; Non STEMI; pharmacology; platelet reactivity; bleeding

资金

  1. Assistance Publique Hopitaux of Marseille, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: We assessed prospectively the association between occurrence of post-discharge non-CABG-related TIMI major and minor bleeding and post-treatment platelet reactivity in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE ACS). Methods and results: Five hundred and ninety-seven consecutive patients admitted with NSTE ACS were prospectively included. Between hospital discharge and one month follow-up, we observed 16 (2.7%) non-CABG-related T I M I haemorrhagic complications including five (0.84%) major and 11(1.8%) minor bleeds. Patients with bleeding had significantly lower post-treatment values of ADP-induced aggregation (43 +/- 14% versus. 56 +/- 19%, p=0.002) and platelet reactivity index VASP (43 +/- 14% versus 54 +/- 23%; p=0.04) and a trend for lower values of arachidonic acid-induced aggregation (2.4 +/- 5.4 versus 13 +/- 21; p=0.27). After stratification by quartiles based on post-treatment ADP-induced platelet aggregation, we identified patients in the first quartile as hyper-responders with very low post-treatment platelet reactivity, below <40%. The risk of T I M I major and minor bleeding was significantly higher in the first quartile of hyper-responders than in the others quartiles: 10 (6.6%) versus six (1.4%), p=0.001. Conclusions: Our results suggest that assessment of post-treatment platelet reactivity might be used to detect hyper-responders to antiplatelet therapy with higher risk of non-CABG related bleeding and tailor antiplatelet therapy according to both ischaemic and bleeding risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据