Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 4, 2026
Microfluidics in Assessing Platelet Function
Published on: November 8, 2024
Reasons for the Failure of Platelet Function Testing to Adjust Antiplatelet Therapy: Pharmacodynamic Insights From
Benoit Lattuca1,2, Johanne Silvain1, Yan Yan1,3
1Sorbonne University, ACTION Study Group, INSERM UMRS 1166, Cardiology Institute, Pitié-Salpêtrière (AP-HP) University Hospital, Paris, France (B.L., J.S., Y.Y., G.M., J.-P.C.).
Background:
In the ARCTIC trial (Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy Versus a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interruption Versus Continuation One Year After Stenting), treatment adjustment following platelet function testing failed to improve clinical outcomes. However, high-on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) is considered as a predictor of poor ischemic outcome. This prespecified substudy evaluated clinical outcomes according to the residual platelet reactivity status after antiplatelet therapy adjustment.
Methods:
We analyzed the 1213 patients assigned to the monitoring arm of the ARCTIC trial in whom platelet reactivity was evaluated by the VerifyNow P2Y12 test before percutaneous coronary intervention and during the maintenance phase (at 14 days). HPR was defined as platelet reaction unit≥235U. The primary ischemic end point, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization and the safety end point of major bleeding were assessed according to the platelet reactivity status.
Results:
Before percutaneous coronary intervention, 35.7% of patients displayed HPR (n=419). During the acute phase, between percutaneous coronary intervention and the 14-day platelet function testing, ischemic (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.74-1.18]; P=0.58) and safety outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.22-7.59]; P=0.78) were similar in HPR and non-HPR patients. During the maintenance phase, the proportion of HPR patients (n=186, 17.4%) decreased by 56%. At 1-year, there was no difference for the ischemic end point (5.9% versus 6.0%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.40-1.58]; P=0.51) and a nonsignificant higher rate of major bleedings (2.7% versus 1.0%, hazard ratio, 2.83 [95% CI, 0.96-8.41]; P=0.06) in HPR versus non-HPR patients.
Conclusions:
The proportion of HPR was halved after platelet function testing and treatment adjustment but without significant ischemic benefit at 1 year. HPR seems more as a modifiable risk marker than a risk factor of ischemic outcome.
Clinical Trial Registration:
URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00827411.
Related Concept Videos
01:20Antiplatelet Drugs: Prostaglandin Synthesis, P2Y12 and Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors
Prostaglandin synthesis inhibitors, exemplified by the widely known aspirin, wield their power by irreversibly acetylating...
01:22Formation of the Platelet Plug
As the injured blood vessel contracts, endothelial cells undergo contraction, revealing collagen fibers in the basement membrane and underlying connective tissue. Furthermore, the plasma membrane of endothelial cells becomes adhesive, preparing the site for platelet adhesion. Platelets...
01:22Effect of Hepatic Disease on Pharmacokinetics: Pathophysiologic Assessment and Liver Function Test
01:30Anticoagulant Drugs: Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins
01:27Pharmacodynamics in Geriatric Patients: Effects of Age
01:08Effect of Hepatic Disease on Pharmacokinetics: Dose Adjustments Due to Hepatic Impairment