Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 23, 2026

Interventional Diagnostic Procedure: A Practical Guide for the Assessment of Coronary Vascular Function
Published on: March 15, 2022
Platelet function monitoring guided antiplatelet therapy in patients receiving high-risk coronary interventions
Li Xu1, Lefeng Wang1, Xinchun Yang1
1Heart Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100020, China.
Insights
Selective platelet function monitoring did not improve clinical outcomes for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention patients. This approach, using thromboelastography (TEG), did not reduce major adverse events compared to standard care.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Pharmacology
Background:
- Routine platelet function monitoring post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is generally not necessary.
- The benefit of selective platelet function monitoring in high-risk PCI patients remains unclear.
- This study investigated therapy guided by platelet function monitoring in high-risk PCI patients.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the clinical benefit of antiplatelet therapy guided by thromboelastography (TEG) platelet function monitoring.
- To evaluate if targeted antiplatelet adjustments improve outcomes in high-risk PCI patients.
- To compare a TEG-guided strategy against conventional therapy in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing complex PCI.
Main Methods:
- 384 Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing high-risk, complex PCI were randomized.
- One group received conventional dual antiplatelet therapy; the other received TEG-guided therapy with dose adjustments for aspirin and clopidogrel based on inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA).
- Primary efficacy endpoint: composite of myocardial infarction, emergency target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, and death at six months.
Main Results:
- No significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups.
- TEG-guided therapy led to significant improvements in IPA levels (P < 0.01) after dose adjustments.
- The primary efficacy endpoint rates were similar: 4.7% in the conventional group vs. 5.2% in the TEG-guided group (HR: 1.13; P = 0.79).
Conclusions:
- Antiplatelet therapy guided by TEG-monitored platelet function did not improve clinical efficacy.
- This strategy was ineffective even in ACS patients treated with high-risk complex PCI.
- Conventional antiplatelet therapy remains the standard for this patient group.
Background:
Large-scale clinical trials have shown that routine monitoring of the platelet function in patients after percutanous coronary intervention (PCI) is not necessary. However, it is still unclear whether patients received high-risk PCI would benefit from a therapy which is guided by a selective platelet function monitoring. This explanatory study sought to assess the benefit of a therapy guided by platelet function monitoring for these patients.
Methods:
Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients (n = 384) who received high-risk, complex PCI were randomized into two groups. PCI in the two types of lesions described below was defined as high-risk, complex PCI: lesions that could result in severe clinical outcomes if stent thrombosis occurred or lesions at high risk for stent thrombosis. The patients in the conventionally treated group received standard dual antiplatelet therapy. The patients in the platelet function monitoring guided group received an antiplated therapy guided by a modified thromboelastography (TEG) platelet mapping: If inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) induced by arachidonic acid (AA) was less than 50% the aspirin dosage was raised to 200 mg/d; if IPA induced by adenosine diphosphate (ADP) was less than 30% the clopidogrel dosage was raised to 150 mg/d, for three months. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of myocardial infarction, emergency target vessel revascularization (eTVR), stent thrombosis, and death in six months.
Results:
This study included 384 patients; 191 and 193 in the conventionally treated group and platelet function monitoring guided group, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the baseline clinical characteristics and interventional data between the two groups. In the platelet function monitoring guided group, the mean IPA induced by AA and ADP were (69.2 ± 24.5)% (range, 4.8% to 100.0%) and (51.4 ± 29.8)% (range, 0.2% to 100.0%), respectively. The AA-induced IPA of forty-three (22.2%) patients was less than 50% and the ADP-induced IPA of fifty-seven (29.5%) patients was less than 30%; therefore, their drug dosages were adjusted. The TEG was rechecked one to four weeks after PCI, and the results indicated that the IPAs had significantly improved (P < 0.01). However, no significant differences were found in the rates of the primary efficacy endpoint. Rates in the conventionally treated group and platelet function monitoring guided group were 4.7% and 5.2%, respectively (hazard ratio: 1.13; P = 0.79).
Conclusion:
An antiplatelet therapy guided by TEG monitored platelet function could not improve clinical efficacy even in ACS patients treated with high-risk complex PCI.
Related Concept Videos
Antiplatelet Drugs: Prostaglandin Synthesis, P2Y12 and Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors
Prostaglandin synthesis inhibitors, exemplified by the widely known aspirin, wield their power by irreversibly acetylating...
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Angina IV: Management
Angina V: Nursing Management

