Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial Examining the Impact of Platelet Function Testing on Practice: The Treatment With Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome Prospective Open Label Antiplatelet Therapy Study

Background—Little is known about how clinicians use platelet function testing to guide choice and dosing of adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitor (ADPri) therapy in routine community practice. Methods and Results—The Treatment With Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS)—Prospective, Open Label, Antiplatelet Therapy Study (TRANSLATE-POPS) was a cluster-randomized trial in which 100 hospitals were assigned access to no-cost platelet function testing versus usual care for acute myocardial infarction patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. In both arms, ADPri treatment decisions were left up to the care team. The primary end point was the frequency of ADPri therapy adjustment before discharge. Secondary end points included 30-day rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries–defined bleeding events. Platelet function testing was performed in 66.9% of patients treated in intervention sites versus 1.4% of patients in usual care sites. Intervention arm patients were more likely to have ADPri therapy adjustment than usual care patients (14.8% versus 10.5%, P=0.004; odds ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.18–2.40); however, there were no significant differences in 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (4.8% versus 5.4%, P=0.73; odds ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.66–1.34) or bleeding (4.3% versus 4.2%, P=0.33; odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.55–1.34). One-year outcomes were also not significantly different between groups. An as-treated analysis showed higher incidence of ADPri therapy adjustment among intervention arm patients who received platelet function testing than untested usual care arm (16.4% versus 10.2%, P<0.0001), but no significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events or bleeding. Conclusions—TRANSLATE-POPS found that when clinicians routinely used platelet function testing, they were more likely to adjust their choice or dosing of ADPri therapy; yet with few changes in therapy overall, significant differences in clinical outcomes were not seen. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01088503.

[1]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). , 2011, European heart journal.

[2]  K. Huber,et al.  Expert position paper on the role of platelet function testing in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention , 2013, European heart journal.

[3]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Consensus and update on the definition of on-treatment platelet reactivity to adenosine diphosphate associated with ischemia and bleeding. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  Laura Mauri,et al.  2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention , 2013, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[5]  Peter L Duffy,et al.  Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES): a prospective multicentre registry study , 2013, The Lancet.

[6]  R. Abbate,et al.  Comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor loading doses in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: RAPID (Rapid Activity of Platelet Inhibitor Drugs) primary PCI study. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[7]  Seung‐Jung Park,et al.  Differential prognostic impact of high on-treatment platelet reactivity among patients with acute coronary syndromes versus stable coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2013, American heart journal.

[8]  E. Vicaut,et al.  Bedside monitoring to adjust antiplatelet therapy for coronary stenting. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  K. Anstrom,et al.  Abstract 15573: In-Hospital Switching of ADP Receptor Inhibitors in Myocardial Infarction Patients Treated with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights from the TRANSLATE-ACS Study , 2012 .

[10]  G. Stone,et al.  A randomized trial of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with high platelet reactivity on clopidogrel after elective percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of drug-eluting stents: results of the TRIGGER-PCI (Testing Platelet Reactivity In Patients Undergoing Elective Stent Placem , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  W. Kim,et al.  Different prognostic significance of high on-treatment platelet reactivity as assessed by the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay after coronary stenting in patients with and without acute myocardial infarction. , 2012, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[12]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation , 2012 .

[13]  Hani Jneid,et al.  2012 ACCF/AHA focused update of the guideline for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2007 guideline and replacing the 2011 focused update): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Forc , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  K. Anstrom,et al.  Treatment with adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors-longitudinal assessment of treatment patterns and events after acute coronary syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) study design: expanding the paradigm of longitudinal observational research. , 2011, American heart journal.

[15]  M. Price,et al.  Impact of platelet reactivity on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention. A collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[16]  D. Angiolillo Applying platelet function testing in clinical practice: what are the unmet needs? , 2011, JAMA.

[17]  Betti Giusti,et al.  High residual platelet reactivity after clopidogrel loading and long-term cardiovascular events among patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing PCI. , 2011, JAMA.

[18]  P. Teirstein,et al.  Platelet Reactivity and Cardiovascular Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Time-Dependent Analysis of the Gauging Responsiveness With a VerifyNow P2Y12 Assay Impact on Thrombosis and Safety (GRAVITAS) Trial , 2011, Circulation.

[19]  T. Lauer,et al.  Kardiologische Aspekte der präoperativen Risikostratifizierung , 2011 .

[20]  M. Pansieri,et al.  High on-treatment platelet reactivity after prasugrel loading dose and cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[21]  J. Marchesini,et al.  Prospective evaluation of on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity over time in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention relationship with gene polymorphisms and clinical outcome. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[22]  Marco Valgimigli,et al.  Standardized Bleeding Definitions for Cardiovascular Clinical Trials: A Consensus Report From the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium , 2011, Circulation.

[23]  N. Schork,et al.  Standard- vs high-dose clopidogrel based on platelet function testing after percutaneous coronary intervention: the GRAVITAS randomized trial. , 2011, JAMA.

[24]  V. Deneer,et al.  Comparison of platelet function tests in predicting clinical outcome in patients undergoing coronary stent implantation. , 2010, JAMA.

[25]  Claes Held,et al.  Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  Françoise Dignat-George,et al.  Tailored clopidogrel loading dose according to platelet reactivity monitoring to prevent acute and subacute stent thrombosis. , 2009, The American journal of cardiology.

[27]  P. Barragan,et al.  Adjusted clopidogrel loading doses according to vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation index decrease rate of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with clopidogrel resistance: a multicenter randomized prospective study. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[28]  E. Antman,et al.  Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  C. Macaya,et al.  Variability in individual responsiveness to clopidogrel: clinical implications, management, and future perspectives. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[30]  M. Furman,et al.  Evidence that pre‐existent variability in platelet response to ADP accounts for ‘clopidogrel resistance’ , 2007, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[31]  F. Neumann,et al.  Time Dependence of Platelet Inhibition After a 600-mg Loading Dose of Clopidogrel in a Large, Unselected Cohort of Candidates for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , 2005, Circulation.

[32]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Variability in platelet responsiveness to clopidogrel among 544 individuals. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[33]  Carl J Pepine,et al.  ACC/AHA guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction--2002: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients , 2002, Circulation.

[34]  Frans Van de Werf,et al.  An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. , 1993, The New England journal of medicine.