Chinese Medical Journal (Jan 2016)

Head to Head Comparison of Two Point-of-care Platelet Function Tests Used for Assessment of On-clopidogrel Platelet Reactivity in Chinese Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

  • Yi Yao,
  • Jia-Hui Zhang,
  • Xiao-Fang Tang,
  • Chen He,
  • Yuan-Liang Ma,
  • Jing-Jing Xu,
  • Ying Song,
  • Ru Liu,
  • Xian-Min Meng,
  • Lei Song,
  • Miao Wang,
  • Run-Lin Gao,
  • Jin-Qing Yuan

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.190664
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 129, no. 19
pp. 2269 – 2274

Abstract

Read online

Background: Platelet function tests are widely used in clinical practice to guide personalized antiplatelet therapy. In China, the thromboelastography (TEG) test has been well accepted in clinics, whereas VerifyNow, mainly used for scientific research, has not been used in routine clinical practice. The aim of the current study was to compare these two point-of-care platelet function tests and to analyze the consistency between the two tests for evaluating on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity in Chinese acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: A total of 184 patients admitted to Fuwai Hospital between August 2014 and May 2015 were enrolled in the study. On-clopidogrel platelet reactivity was assessed 3 days after PCI by TEG and VerifyNow using adenosine diphosphate as an agonist. Based on the previous reports, an inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) 230 for VerifyNow was defined as high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (HPR). An IPA >70% or a PRU 205 for HPR and PRU <169 for LPR. Conclusions: By comparing VerifyNow to TEG which has been widely used in clinics, VerifyNow could be an attractive alternative to TEG for monitoring on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity in Chinese patients.

Keywords