image dons

je fais un don

Bedside monitoring to adjust antiplatelet therapy for coronary stenting.

Remerciements de Mme COLLET et famille
Aux collègues, amis et patients...

La Grande Journée du Coeur (jeudi 27 juin 2024) : un programme prestigieux dans un lieu exceptionnel !
Pour en savoir plus, veuillez cliquer ici.

Colloquium "Rythme et conduction" (23 avril 2024)
Vidéos des présentations bientôt en ligne !

Bedside monitoring to adjust antiplatelet therapy for coronary stenting.

Publié dans New England Journal of Medecine, le 29 novembre 2012.

En savoir plus en consultant le site.

Auteurs : Collet JP, Cuisset T, Rangé G, Cayla G, Elhadad S, Pouillot C, Henry P, Motreff P, Carrié D, Boueri Z, Belle L, Van Belle E, Rousseau H, Aubry P, Monségu J, Sabouret P, O’Connor SA, Abtan J, Kerneis M, Saint-Etienne C, Barthélémy O, Beygui F, Silvain J, Vicaut E, Montalescot G; ARCTIC Investigators.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Patients’ responses to oral antiplatelet therapy are subject to variation. Bedside monitoring offers the opportunity to improve outcomes after coronary stenting by individualizing therapy.

METHODS:

We randomly assigned 2440 patients scheduled for coronary stenting at 38 centers to a strategy of platelet-function monitoring, with drug adjustment in patients who had a poor response to antiplatelet therapy, or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and drug adjustment. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization 1 year after stent implantation. For patients in the monitoring group, the VerifyNow P2Y12 and aspirin point-of-care assays were used in the catheterization laboratory before stent implantation and in the outpatient clinic 2 to 4 weeks later.

RESULTS:

In the monitoring group, high platelet reactivity in patients taking clopidogrel (34.5% of patients) or aspirin (7.6%) led to the administration of an additional bolus of clopidogrel, prasugrel, or aspirin along with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during the procedure. The primary end point occurred in 34.6% of the patients in the monitoring group, as compared with 31.1% of those in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.29; P=0.10). The main secondary end point, stent thrombosis or any urgent revascularization, occurred in 4.9% of the patients in the monitoring group and 4.6% of those in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52; P=0.77). The rate of major bleeding events did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study showed no significant improvements in clinical outcomes with platelet-function monitoring and treatment adjustment for coronary stenting, as compared with standard antiplatelet therapy without monitoring. (Funded by Allies in Cardiovascular Trials Initiatives and Organized Networks and others; ARCTIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00827411.).

Autres actualités

+

01/10/2023


Rationale and design of the ARAMIS trial: Anakinra versus pl...

Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2023 Oct;116(10):460-466
+

01/09/2023


Comparison of three echo-guidance techniques in percutaneous...

Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2023 Sep 29:S1875-2136(23)00171-7