BackgroundVerapamil is traditionally applied prophylactically in transradial procedures to prevent radial artery spasm. However, verapamil may have side effects and is contraindicated in some clinical settings.Methods and ResultsDuring an investigator‐initiated, randomized, double‐blind trial, we evaluated the need for preventive verapamil administration. After vascular access was established, patients received either 5 mg verapamil (n=297) or placebo (n=294). We compared the rate of access site conversions as primary end point using a superiority margin of 5%. Occurrence of code breaks (composite of conversions and unplanned use of verapamil), overall verapamil use, procedural and fluoroscopic times, contrast volume, and subjective pain were investigated as secondary end points. The rate of access site conversions was not different in the 2 arms (placebo 1.7% versus verapamil 0.7%, P=0.28, difference 1.0%, 95% CI for the difference −1.1% to 3.3%). Proportion of code breaks was similar in the 2 groups (3.4% versus 1.3%, P=0.11), whereas overall verapamil use was markedly lower in the placebo arm (2.0% versus 100%, P<0.0001). Procedural time (median [IQR] 16.0 minutes [9.0 to 30.0 minutes] versus 17.0 minutes [10.0 to 31.0 minutes], P=0.37), fluoroscopic time (4.4 minutes [2.1 to 9.6 minutes] versus 4.8 minutes [2.4 to 10.7 minutes], P=0.28), contrast volume (72.5 mL [48.0 to 146.0 mL] versus 75.5 mL [47.0 to 156.5 mL], P=0.74), and pain score (P for trend=0.12) were comparable in the 2 groups.ConclusionsThe preventive use of verapamil may be unnecessary for transradial procedures. The omission of prophylactic verapamil may not only reduce the rate of potential complications related to the drug but also allow the safe extension of the transradial method to those with contraindications to verapamil.Clinical Trial RegistrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01402427.

No abstract

Combined antiplatelet therapy reduces recurrent atherothrombotic events in stable coronary disease patients; however, high residual platelet reactivity measured ex vivo still raises concerns as a condition related to treatment failure. Alpha-2 adrenoceptor enhances platelet reactivity and might contribute to this phenomenon. For the present study, 121 stable angina patients on standard dual antiplatelet therapy (75 mg clopidogrel and 100 mg acetylsalicylic acid) were recruited. Born aggregometry was performed with adenosine diphosphate (ADP), collagen and epinephrine. To verify platelet adrenergic activity, potentiation by low-dose epinephrine and inhibition by selective alpha-2 receptor blocker atipamezole were determined. To assess the P2Y(12)-specific residual activity, cangrelor was used. Plasma norepinephrine, soluble CD40-ligand, high-sensitivity-C-reactive protein (hsCRP) - and in 24 subjects platelet P-selectin positivity were measured. Epinephrine - at very low concentration (10(-9)g/ml) - significantly potentiates (1.25 microM ADP: 26.5% vs. 43%; 5 microM ADP: 53% vs. 64.5%; collagen: 17% vs 42%, p < 0.001) while atipamezole inhibits ADP- and collagen-induced platelet aggregations (1.25 microM ADP: 26.5% vs. 23%; 5 microM ADP: 53% vs. 47%; collagen: 17% vs. 11%, p < 0.001). Patients with high adrenergic activity have significantly increased baseline ADP- and collagen-induced platelet aggregation. Based on cangrelor's efficacy, these patients have significantly more residual P2Y(12) activity as well. HsCRP and soluble CD40-ligand levels were similar. In conclusion, stable coronary heart disease patients with prominent adrenoceptor activity in vitro have significantly increased platelet aggregability and more functional P2Y(12) receptor, indicating poor inhibitory response to thienopyridines. Therefore, platelet adrenergic receptor represents a considerable, dynamic factor of high residual platelet reactivity and might contribute to cardiovascular events indicating failure of antiplatelet therapy.

No abstract