Search

INTRODUCTION: Cats with cardiomyopathy face an increased risk of arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Although clopidogrel is frequently utilized to mitigate this risk, feline responses to this therapy exhibit variability. This study evaluated 2 viscoelastic devices, thromboelastography (TEG) and Viscoelastic Coagulation Monitor (VCM), for monitoring clopidogrel in cats in comparison to light transmission aggregometry (LTA). METHODS: Twenty-eight healthy cats received clopidogrel for 7 days. Blood was collected at baseline and after treatment for analysis by TEG, VCM, and LTA. RESULTS: On LTA, maximum amplitude, slope, and area under the curve (AUC) significantly decreased after treatment (p

IntroductionCats with cardiomyopathy face an increased risk of arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Although clopidogrel is frequently utilized to mitigate this risk, feline responses to this therapy exhibit variability. This study evaluated 2 viscoelastic devices, thromboelastography (TEG) and Viscoelastic Coagulation Monitor (VCM), for monitoring clopidogrel in cats in comparison to light transmission aggregometry (LTA).MethodsTwenty-eight healthy cats received clopidogrel for 7 days. Blood was collected at baseline and after treatment for analysis by TEG, VCM, and LTA.ResultsOn LTA, maximum amplitude, slope, and area under the curve (AUC) significantly decreased after treatment (p

The present study compared performances of the three major methods used for assessing platelet reactivity (PR)—VerifyNow, light transmission aggregometry (LTA) and thromboelastography (TEG)—to predict ischaemic events in patients receiving clopidogrel. PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to April 2019 for prospective studies that examined PR using VerifyNow, LTA or TEG and the incidence of ischaemic events. The investigated diagnostic indices include sensitivity, specificity, positive (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) of VerifyNow, LTA and TEG, respectively. A total of 26 prospective studies involving 22 185 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled AUC was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.67‐0.75) for VerifyNow, 0.60 (95% CI: 0.55‐0.64) for LTA and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77‐0.84) for TEG. Results of indirect comparisons indicated the AUC of VerifyNow was higher than that of LTA (1.18, 95% CI: 1.08‐1.30) and lower than that of TEG (0.88, 95% CI: 0.82‐0.94). TEG outperformed the other two methods for assessing PR in all predictive measures, including sensitivity, specificity, PLR and NLR. Despite a lack of studies that directly compared the three methods, our findings suggest that TEG should be recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid—ASA) is a first-line antiplatelet therapy provided to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, it has been demonstrated that 20–30% of these patients are non-sensitive to their ASA therapy. ASA non-sensitivity is a phenomenon where low-dose ASA (81–325 mg) does not completely inhibit arachidonic-acid-induced platelet aggregation, putting patients at risk of adverse cardio-thrombotic events. Ticagrelor is a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and alternative antiplatelet that has been approved to reduce the risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and overall cardiovascular-related death. In this study, we aimed to identify ASA non-sensitive patients and evaluate if they would be sensitive to ticagrelor. Materials and Methods: For this pilot study, thirty-eight patients with CAD taking 81 mg ASA were recruited. Blood samples were collected from each patient and platelet rich plasma (PRP) from each sample was isolated. Light-transmission aggregometry (LTA) was used to determine baseline ASA sensitivity in each patient using 0.5 mg/mL arachidonic acid as a platelet agonist. Patients with ≥20% maximal platelet aggregation after activation were considered ASA non-sensitive. Fresh PRP samples from all patients were then spiked with a clinical dosage of ticagrelor (3 μM—approximately equivalent to a loading dose of 180 mg ticagrelor). Sensitivity was determined using LTA and 5 μM ADP as a platelet agonist. Patients with ≥46% maximal platelet aggregation were considered ticagrelor non-sensitive. Results: Of the 38 CAD patients taking 81 mg ASA, 32% (12/38) were non-sensitive to their 81 mg ASA therapy. All 38 of the recruited patients (100%) were sensitive to ticagrelor ex vivo. In conclusion, we were able to identify ASA non-sensitivity using LTA and determine that ASA non-sensitive patients were sensitive to ticagrelor. Conclusions: Our results suggest that ticagrelor is a promising alternative therapy for patients who are non-sensitive to ASA.