Point-of-Care Assessment of Antiplatelet Agents in the Perioperative Period: A Review

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to review the strengths and limitations of current 'point-of-care' techniques for the detection of antiplatelet drug effects. The review was based on a Medline search for articles with key words related to "platelet function tests", "point-of-care", and "anaesthesia", published in English between January 1996 and September 2008. It was found that global assessments of 'haemostasis', such as the standard thrombelastograph ® , Sonoclot ® , Clot Signature Analyser ® and Hemodyne™, are not specific for platelet function and are essentially insensitive to cyclooxygenase inhibitors (aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) and P 2 Y 12 antagonists (ticlopidine, clopidogrel). Global assessments of 'platelet function', such as the PFA-100 ® and PlateletWorks ® , are more specific for platelet function, but also have limited sensitivity for cyclooxygenase inhibitors and P 2 Y 12 antagonists. The newer devices developed specifically for the assessment of antiplatelet drugs, such as Platelet Mapping ® , the Impact™ Cone and Platelet Analyser and the VerifyNow ® , are more promising, but are not as sensitive as laboratory platelet aggregometry. All three categories of devices detect G p II b /III a antagonists (abciximab, tirofiban, eptifibatide) activity, but not all provide quantitative assessments for monitoring therapy. The limitations appeared to be related to the complexity of platelet function, the multiple pathways of platelet activation, the wide interpatient variability in platelet responses and the interdependence between platelets and other aspects of coagulation. The strengths and limitations of point-of-care devices should be appreciated before they are used to assist clinical decision-making in the perioperative period.

Wide Temperature Range Testing with ROTEM Coagulation Analyses

“…In patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, the procoagulative effects described above are also offset by dual platelet inhibition medication. Gibbs (2009) confirmed that the effect of these powerful drugs is not detectable with thromboelastometry, which warrants the treatment of patients with and without dual platelet inhibition in one coherent group when evaluating ROTEM results, as was performed in the present study by us.…”

Receptor Inhibitors in Acute Coronary Syndromes: What Is New on the Horizon?

“…In contrast, in the presence of platelet inhibition by P2Y 12 antagonists, not all the platelets aggregate reducing the difference between the initial platelet count and the postagonist count. The ratio between the aggregated platelets in the agonist sample and the platelet count in the reference tube x 100% is used as the degree of platelet aggregation [75, 78]. …”

Learning curve of Wingspan stenting for intracranial atherosclerosis: single-center experience of 95 consecutive patients

“…Such a medication regimen did not result in a higher risk of periprocedural ischemic stroke in our study. However, whether limiting the dose of antiplatelet medication is related to a reduced risk of periprocedural intracerebral hemorrhage or an increased risk of ischemic stroke would require further study, perhaps involving the use of point-of-care assessment of platelet function inhibition 18. Ipsilateral ischemic stroke occurred in three of the nine cases of periprocedural stroke (33.3%), a rate substantially lower than that in the SAMMPRIS study (69.7%, 23/33).…”