CLINICAL RESEARCH: INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY
Randomized Comparison of Adjunctive Cilostazol Versus High Maintenance Dose Clopidogrel in Patients With High Post-Treatment Platelet ReactivityResults of the ACCEL-RESISTANCE (Adjunctive Cilostazol Versus High Maintenance Dose Clopidogrel in Patients With Clopidogrel Resistance) Randomized Study
Young-Hoon Jeong, MD, PhD*,
Seung-Whan Lee, MD, PhD ,
Bong-Ryong Choi, MD*,
In-Suk Kim, MD, PhD ,
Myung-Ki Seo, MD*,
Choong Hwan Kwak, MD, PhD*,
Jin-Yong Hwang, MD, PhD* and
Seong-Wook Park, MD, PhD,*
* Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, Korea
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, Korea
Department of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Manuscript received August 11, 2008;
revised manuscript received December 2, 2008,
accepted December 8, 2008.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Seong-Wook Park, Department of Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 388-1 Pungnap-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul 138-736, Korea (Email: swpark{at}amc.seoul.kr).
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of adjunctive cilostazol in patients with high post-treatment platelet reactivity (HPPR) undergoing coronary stenting.
Background: Although addition of cilostazol to dual antiplatelet therapy enhances adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-induced platelet inhibition, it is unknown whether adjunctive cilostazol can reduce HPPR.
Methods: Sixty patients with HPPR after a 300-mg loading dose of clopidogrel were enrolled. HPPR was defined as maximal platelet aggregation (Aggmax) >50% with 5 µmol/l ADP. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either adjunctive cilostazol (triple group; n = 30) or high maintenance dose (MD) clopidogrel (high-MD group; n = 30). Platelet function was assessed at baseline and after 30 days with conventional aggregometry and the VerifyNow assay.
Results: Baseline platelet function measurements were similar in both groups. After 30 days, significantly fewer patients in the triple versus high-MD group had HPPR (3.3% vs. 26.7%, p = 0.012). Percent inhibitions of 5 µmol/l ADP-induced Aggmax and late platelet aggregation (Agglate) were significantly greater in the triple versus high-MD group (51.1 ± 22.5% vs. 28.0 ± 18.5%, p < 0.001, and 70.9 ± 27.3% vs. 45.3 ± 23.4%, p < 0.001, respectively). Percent inhibitions of 20 µmol/l ADP-induced Aggmax and Agglate were consistently greater in the triple versus high-MD group. Percent change of P2Y12 reaction units demonstrated a higher antiplatelet effect in the triple versus high-MD group (39.6 ± 24.1% vs. 23.1 ± 29.9%, p = 0.022).
Conclusions: Adjunctive cilostazol reduces the rate of HPPR and intensifies platelet inhibition as compared with a high-MD clopidogrel of 150 mg/day.
Key Words: platelet • high post-treatment platelet reactivity • adjunctive cilostazol • high maintenance dose clopidogrel
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | ACS = acute coronary syndrome | | ADP = adenosine diphosphate | | Agglate
= late platelet aggregation at 5 min | | Aggmax
= maximal platelet aggregation | | cAMP = cyclic adenosine monophosphate | | HPPR = high post-treatment platelet reactivity | | IPA = inhibition of platelet aggregation | | LD = loading dose | | LTA = light transmittance aggregometry | | MD = maintenance dose | | PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention | | PPP = platelet-poor plasma | | PRP = platelet-rich plasma | | PRU = P2Y12 reaction unit |
|
It has been established that a combination of a thienopyridine and aspirin improves long-term clinical outcomes in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (1–5). Furthermore, recent studies have suggested the hypothesis that greater adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-induced platelet inhibition by a more potent P2Y12 antagonist may result in greater reduction of clinical ischemic events (6,7). However, because some subgroups were perceived to be at high risk of major bleeding from greater platelet inhibition, it would be critically important to achieve the appropriate degree of platelet inhibition with greater efficacy and without increased bleeding complications (6,8).
P2Y12 blockade by clopidogrel at approved doses is relatively modest, and clopidogrel variably inhibits ADP-induced platelet aggregation (9,10). In addition, clopidogrel resistance, or high post-treatment platelet reactivity (HPPR) by laboratory testing, has been associated with untoward clinical events (11–16). Although there are limited data to support clinical benefits, a higher loading dose (LD) and maintenance dose (MD) of clopidogrel, and potent P2Y12 antagonists have been shown to enhance platelet inhibition and reduce the rate of HPPR (17–20).
Cilostazol reversibly inhibits platelet aggregation via its selective inhibition of phosphodiesterase type 3 and results in increased cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) in platelet (21). A recent study showed that addition of cilostazol to dual antiplatelet therapy (triple antiplatelet therapy) resulted in greater ADP-induced platelet inhibition compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (22). This finding suggests that triple antiplatelet therapy could be an alternative regimen to achieve an enhanced platelet inhibition in patients with HPPR.
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of adjunctive cilostazol on platelet inhibition in patients with HPPR. We performed a prospective, randomized study to compare the degree of platelet inhibition by adjunctive cilostazol 100 mg twice daily versus high-MD clopidogrel 150 mg/day in patients with HPPR undergoing coronary stenting.
|
Methods
|
|---|
Patient population.
Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were  18 years of age, undergoing coronary stent implantation, and identified as having HPPR. Major exclusion criteria included acute myocardial infarction, hemodynamic instability, active bleeding and bleeding diatheses, oral anticoagulation therapy with warfarin, use of periprocedural glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, contraindication to antiplatelet therapy, left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, leukocyte count <3,000/mm3, platelet count <100,000/mm3, aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase levels 3 times upper normal, serum creatinine level 2.5 mg/dl, stroke within 3 months, noncardiac disease with a life expectancy <1 year, or inability to follow the protocol. In patients with multiple lesions, the first stented lesion was considered the target lesion. The Institutional Review Board of Gyeongsang National University Hospital approved the study protocol, and the patients provided written informed consent for participation.
Study design.
The ACCEL-RESISTANCE (Adjunctive Cilostazol Versus High Maintenance Dose Clopidogrel in Patients With Clopidogrel Resistance) study is a prospective, randomized, controlled platelet function study of patients with HPPR. The flow diagram of the study is depicted in Figure 1. All patients received a 300-mg LD of clopidogrel and aspirin at least 12 h before coronary stenting (12), followed by 200 mg/day of aspirin thereafter throughout the study period. Immediately after insertion of the arterial sheath in the catheterization laboratory, blood samples for post-treatment platelet reactivity determinations were obtained. Diagnostic and interventional procedures were performed according to standard techniques. If patients who met the definition of HPPR were identified, they were randomly assigned to adjunctive cilostazol (triple group) or high-MD clopidogrel (high-MD group) using sealed envelopes containing a computer-generated randomization sequence. Patients in the triple group (n = 30) received a 200-mg LD of cilostazol within 6 h after randomization, followed by cilostazol 100 mg twice daily for 30 days. Patients in the high-MD group (n = 30) received clopidogrel 150 mg/day for 30 days. At the 30-day follow-up visit, patient compliance to antiplatelet therapy was assessed by interview and tablet counting. Blood samples at 30 days were obtained for platelet-function testing 2 to 4 h after the last intake of the study medication. Peripheral venous blood samples were drawn from an antecubital vein using a 21-gauge needle.
Platelet function measurements.
Blood samples were collected using the double-syringe technique, in which the first 2 to 4 ml of blood is discarded to avoid spontaneous platelet activation. Platelet function was measured with light transmittance aggregometry (LTA) and the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay (Accumetrics, San Diego, California).
Platelet aggregation was assessed with LTA according to standard protocol (20). Briefly, blood samples were drawn into Vacutainer tubes containing 0.5 ml of sodium citrate 3.2% (Becton-Dickinson, San Jose, California) and processed within 60 min. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was obtained as a supernatant fluid after centrifuging blood at 800 rpm for 10 min. The remaining blood was further centrifuged at 2,500 rpm for 10 min to prepare platelet-poor plasma (PPP). PRP was adjusted to platelet counts of 250,000/µl by adding PPP as needed. Platelet aggregation was assessed at 37°C using a PACKS-4 aggregometer (Helena Laboratories Corp., Beaumont, Texas). Light transmission was adjusted to 0% with PRP and to 100% with PPP for each measurement. Platelet functions were measured after addition of 5 and 20 µmol/l ADP, and curves were recorded for 6 min. Platelet aggregation was measured at peak (Aggmax) and at 5 min (Agglate) by laboratory personnel blinded to group assignment. Aggmax is considered to reflect the activity of both P2Y1 and P2Y12 receptors, whereas Agglate is more reflective of P2Y12 receptor activity. Inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) was defined as the percent decrease of aggregation values (Aggmax and Agglate) between baseline and 30 days after randomization and calculated as follows: IPA (%) = ([intensity of aggregation at baseline – intensity of aggregation 30 days after randomization]/[intensity of aggregation at baseline]) x 100 (18). Percentage of platelet disaggregation between Aggmax and Agglate was defined as follows: disaggregation (%) = ([Aggmax – Agglate]/[Aggmax]) x 100 (18).
The VerifyNow P2Y12 assay is a whole-blood, point-of-care system, which has been developed to assess responsiveness to clopidogrel and other P2Y12 antagonists (23,24). Blood was drawn into a Greiner Bio-One 3.2% citrate Vacuette tube (Greiner Bio-One, Kremsmünster, Austria). The assay device consists of 2 whole-blood assay channels. One contains fibrinogen-coated polystyrene beads and 20 µmol/l ADP as an agonist. This channel also contains 22 nmol/l PGE1 to reduce the nonspecific contribution of P2Y1 receptors. Another separate channel contains fibrinogen-coated polystyrene beads and iso-thrombin receptor activating protein (iso-TRAP) as an agonist. Platelet aggregation by iso-TRAP can occur independently of P2Y12 receptors and a baseline value (BASE) for platelet function is obtained. BASE values represent the pre-treatment degree of platelet aggregation in patients on clopidogrel without weaning off clopidogrel. Results are reported in P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU), BASE, and percent platelet inhibition. The percent platelet inhibition is calculated as: ([BASE-PRU]/BASE) x 100, which indicates the difference between pre- and post-treatment values. Percent change of PRU was calculated as the relative difference of PRUs at baseline and 30 days after randomization: percent change of PRU (%) = ([PRU at baseline – PRU 30 days after randomization]/[PRU at baseline]) x 100 (24). We have previously presented the correlations between results from LTA and the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay in our laboratory (25).
End points and definition.
The end points of this study were the rate of HPPR, IPAs of Aggmax and Agglate with ADP stimuli, percentages of platelet disaggregation, and percent change of PRU after 30 days of MD therapy. The cutoff point of HPPR was defined according to baseline Aggmax measured by LTA. Based on previous studies, patients with 5 µmol/l ADP-induced Aggmax >50% were pre-specified as having HPPR (13,26).
Sample size calculation and statistical analysis.
In the OPTIMUS (Optimizing Antiplatelet Therapy in Diabetes Mellitus) study, a 23.6% increase of IPA was seen with increase of daily MD from 75 to 150 mg (5 µmol/l ADP-induced Aggmax 51.2 ± 8% to 39.1 ± 12%) (18). Lee et al. (22) demonstrated a 58.4% difference of IPA between 30 days of dual and triple antiplatelet therapies (5 µmol/l ADP-induced Aggmax 32.2 ± 7.4% to 13.4 ± 9.8%). Assuming that adjunctive cilostazol would increase IPA by 34.8% over high-MD clopidogrel, at least 23 patients per group were required to provide a power of 95% to detect a statistically significant difference between groups with a 2-sided  -level of 0.05. Continuous variables are presented as mean ± SD and compared using the Student unpaired t, Wilcoxon signed rank, or Mann-Whitney U tests. Categorical variables are presented as numbers or percentages and were compared using chi-square or Fisher exact tests (if an expected frequency was <5). A value of p < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 13 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois).
|
Results
|
|---|
Patient characteristics and follow-up.
Baseline platelet function measurements were performed in a total of 300 patients. Of these, 65 patients (21.7%) showed HPPR and 60 patients could be enrolled (Fig. 1). Baseline characteristics were well matched between study groups (Tables 1 and 2). Baseline platelet aggregation values (Aggmax and Agglate) with 5 and 20 µmol/l ADP stimuli were similar in the triple group compared with the high-MD group (Table 3). Furthermore, baseline PRU and percent platelet inhibition did not differ significantly between groups (Table 4).
Because both treatments were well tolerated and no subject discontinued the study drugs, platelet function after 30 days of MD therapy could be assessed in all patients. For all patients, the number of remaining tablets demonstrated complete compliance with the study protocol. Although there was 1 patient with tolerable headache in the triple group, there were no cardiovascular events and no major or minor bleeding in either group.
Rate of HPPR.
After 30 days of MD therapy, both groups showed a remarkable reduction in the rates of HPPR compared with baseline values (all values; p < 0.001). Furthermore, adjunctive cilostazol significantly reduced the rate of HPPR relative to high-MD clopidogrel (3.3% vs. 26.7%, p = 0.012) (Fig. 2). Similar results were seen when 20 µmol/l ADP-induced Aggmax >50% (18) was used to define HPPR (26.7% vs. 73.3%, p < 0.001).
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 2 Rate of HPPR After 30 Days of Antiplatelet Therapy
High maintenance dose (MD) group received high-MD clopidogrel of 150 mg/day. Triple group received adjunctive cilostazol, 100 mg twice daily, in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy. ADP = adenosine diphosphate; Aggmax = maximal platelet aggregation; HPPR = high post-treatment platelet reactivity.
|
|
ADP-induced platelet aggregation.
Patients in the 2 groups experienced a definite reduction in Aggmax after 30 days of MD therapy compared with corresponding baseline measurements (all values; p < 0.001). Aggmax values after 30 days of MD therapy in the triple group were significantly lower than those in the high-MD group (Table 3). IPAs of Aggmax with ADP stimuli were consistently greater in the triple group as compared with the high-MD group (Fig. 3). IPA of Aggmax with 5 µmol/l ADP stimulus was 51.1 ± 22.5% in the triple group and 28.0 ± 18.5% in the high-MD group, with a mean difference of 23.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.5% to 33.8%; p < 0.001). If IPA of Aggmax was assessed after stimulus with 20 µmol/l ADP, the triple group achieved a significant reduction relative to the high-MD group (39.6 ± 23.0% vs. 20.7 ± 15.7%), with a mean difference of 18.9% (95% CI: 8.7% to 29.1%; p < 0.001).
Significant reductions in Agglate after 30 days of MD therapy were also observed in the 2 groups, compared with their corresponding baseline measurements (all values; p < 0.001). Agglate values after 30 days of MD therapy were different between groups (Table 3). IPAs of Agglate with ADP stimulus are illustrated in Figure 4. IPAs of Agglate were consistently higher in the triple group as compared with the high-MD group. IPA of Agglate with 5 µmol/l ADP stimulus was 70.9 ± 27.3% in the triple group and 45.3 ± 23.4% in the high-MD group, with a mean difference of 25.6% (95% CI: 12.4% to 38.7%; p < 0.001). If IPA of Agglate was assessed after stimulus with 20 µmol/l ADP, the triple group showed a significant reduction relative to the high-MD group (62.1 ± 30.7% vs. 33.1 ± 22.8%), with a mean difference of 29.0% (95% CI: 15.0% to 43.0%; p < 0.001).
Percentages of platelet disaggregation with 5 and 20 µmol/l ADP stimuli did not differ between both groups at baseline (Fig. 5). A significant increase of platelet disaggregation after 30 days of MD therapy was identified in the 2 groups, compared with their corresponding baseline measurements (all values; p < 0.001). Thirty days after randomization, percentages of platelet disaggregation in the triple group showed a greater increase than those of the high-MD group (Fig. 5).
The VerifyNow P2Y12 assay.
A significant reduction of PRU and an increase of percent platelet inhibition after 30 days of MD therapy were identified in the 2 groups, compared with their corresponding baseline measurements (all values; p < 0.001). A trend toward lower PRU and higher percent platelet inhibition was apparent in the triple group (Table 4). Percent change of PRU in the triple group demonstrated greater antiplatelet effect than that achieved in the high-MD group (39.6 ± 24.1% vs. 23.1 ± 29.9%), with a mean difference of 16.5% (95% CI: 2.4% to 30.6%; p = 0.022) (Fig. 6).
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 6 Percent Change of P2Y12 Reaction Unit Between Baseline and 30 Days of Antiplatelet Therapy
Bars indicate standard deviations. MD = maintenance dose; PRU = P2Y12 reaction unit.
|
|
|
Discussion
|
|---|
This ACCEL-RESISTANCE study is the first to our knowledge to demonstrate that adjunctive cilostazol reduces the rate of HPPR and intensifies platelet inhibition in patients with HPPR undergoing coronary stenting. Furthermore, this study showed that adjunctive cilostazol as compared with high-MD clopidogrel of 150 mg/day resulted in fewer patients with HPPR and less platelet aggregation. These results provide a rationale for further studies to assess whether adjunctive cilostazol, as compared with other intensified regimens, provides long-term clinical benefits in patients with HPPR.
Platelet inhibition by standard clopidogrel dose reveals response variability when monitored by in vitro platelet function assays (27). Furthermore, HPPR has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes, including stent thrombosis after stenting or in ACS patients (11–16,28). Adequate platelet inhibition by P2Y12 antagonists may contribute to decreased rates of ischemic clinical events. Several strategies have been under investigation to achieve adequate platelet inhibition by blockade of the P2Y12 pathway. Although higher MDs of clopidogrel have achieved significant improvements in intensity of inhibition, persistent presence of HPPR was apparent (18). In the OPTIMUS study, high-MD clopidogrel of 150 mg/day was associated with enhanced antiplatelet effects compared with standard-MD clopidogrel of 75 mg/day in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, but suboptimal clopidogrel response (20 µmol/l ADP-induced Aggmax >50%) was still present in 60% of patients on the 150-mg regimen. Moreover, because no available clinical study has shown superiority of high- over standard-MD clopidogrel, few practitioners have adopted high-MD clopidogrel. Prasugrel is a novel third-generation thienopyridine with more consistent and greater platelet inhibition than a high-MD clopidogrel of 150 mg/day (20,29). As expected, the TRITON–TIMI 38 (TRial to assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by optimizing platelet inhibitioN with prasugrel–Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 38) study found that prasugrel reduced the frequency of ischemic events by 19% in ACS patients (6,7). However, subgroups with advanced age, known cerebrovascular disease, or low body weight had a high risk of major bleeding and no net benefit from prasugrel (6,8). It is imperative to balance efficacy and safety while achieving adequate platelet inhibition.
Cilostazol is a selective reversible phosphodiesterase type 3 inhibitor with unique antithrombotic and vasodilatory properties based on its novel mechanism of action (21,29). Cilostazol inhibits platelet aggregation induced by ADP, arachidonic acid, collagen, and epinephrine (21). The combination of cilostazol and aspirin after stenting showed similar efficacy in preventing thrombotic events compared with that of thienopyridine and aspirin (30,31). Furthermore, an observational study showed that triple antiplatelet therapy reduced the rates of death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis after stenting by approximately 50% as compared with dual antiplatelet therapy, without increasing the risk of bleeding in the triple group (32). The potential to achieve platelet inhibition with minimal risk of bleeding might be explained by an endothelium-targeted antithrombotic therapy, that is, reduction of partially activated platelets by improved endothelial function (21).
In recent studies, triple antiplatelet therapy has resulted in more potent inhibition of ADP-induced platelet aggregation than dual antiplatelet therapy (22,33). This phenomenon may be explained by an additive elevation of intracellular cAMP through both increase of cAMP production by clopidogrel and inhibition of cAMP degradation by cilostazol (33). Moreover, the present study provides the first laboratory evidence that adjunctive cilostazol, as compared with high-MD clopidogrel of 150 mg/day, may significantly reduce the rate of HPPR and enhance platelet inhibition in high-risk patients. This finding might underlie the clinical benefits of triple antiplatelet therapy in the prevention of thrombotic events after stenting (32). In addition, inhibition of neointimal proliferation by adjunctive cilostazol has resulted in reduced restenosis and target lesion revascularization rates, not only after bare-metal stent deployment (34), but also after drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus or long lesions, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (35,36).
With the improvements in both devices and pharmacological support for PCI, stent implantation has been performed with increasing frequency for more complex lesions, and at least 60% of current use is off-label (37). Application of triple antiplatelet therapy for patients with suboptimal clopidogrel response or complex lesions could be an attractive option to balance efficacy and safety while achieving adequate platelet inhibition. Long-term clinical trials with a large number of patients are needed to verify that adjunctive cilostazol could improve clinical outcomes in these patients.
There is no widely acceptable threshold of HPPR (38). Pre-procedural HPPR measured by LTA with ADP stimulation has been associated with a risk of post-discharge ischemic events after PCI (12,14,26,28,39). However, because studies have differences in ADP concentration (5, 10, or 20 µmol/l ADP) and measured points (Aggmax vs. Agglate), it is difficult to define an optimal cutoff point for HPPR (38). Bliden et al. (26) demonstrated that patients undergoing elective PCI with pre-procedural HPPR (5 µmol/l ADP-induced Aggmax 50%) were at increased risk for recurrent ischemic events (odds ratio: 34.6, 95% CI: 8.3 to 144.2, p < 0.001). HPPR measured by the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay (PRU 235) was also associated with post-discharge events after drug-eluting stent implantation (23). Based on previously published data from our laboratory, a 5 µmol/l ADP-induced Aggmax >50% on LTA was similar to a PRU value 235 (25). A threshold of HPPR defined as a 5 µmol/l ADP-induced pre-procedural Aggmax >50%, used in the present study, might indicate an acceptable level of suboptimal response.
Study limitations.
First, the duration of the study period was short and the number of study subjects was relatively small. Variations of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles in the early phase after initiation of antiplatelet therapy might have influenced the results. It needs to be assessed whether the enhanced antiplatelet activity with addition of cilostazol to dual antiplatelet therapy will be consistently maintained after long-term administration. Second, because we performed baseline platelet function measurements at least 12 h after clopidogrel loading, baseline parameters may not be indicative of those corresponding to standard-MD clopidogrel of 75 mg/day. Relative change after 30 days of MD therapy may not represent exact differences of platelet inhibition between standard-MD clopidogrel and the studied regimen. Finally, LTA values can change according to sample conditions and processing. Even though an expert performs the platelet function tests and validation tests daily, there may be daily bias in platelet function measurements. This inherent limitation of LTA, however, should have not significantly influenced the results. The consistent findings with the VerifyNow P2Y12 point-of-care assay may corroborate the results with LTA.
|
Conclusions
|
|---|
Among patients with HPPR undergoing coronary stenting, adjunctive cilostazol reduces the rate of HPPR and achieves intensified platelet inhibition as compared with high-MD clopidogrel of 150 mg/day. It needs to be evaluated whether reduction of HPPR with triple antiplatelet therapy could be translated into improved clinical outcomes.
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
Supported in part by grants from the Research Foundation of Gyeongsang National University Hospital and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation (Korea), and a grant from the Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare as part of the Korea Health 21 Research & Development Project (0412-CR02-0704-0001).
|
References
|
|---|
1. Yusuf S, Zhao F, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius S, Tognoni G, Fox KK, Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events Trial Investigators Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation N Engl J Med 2001;345:494-502.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]2. Mehta SR, Yusuf S, Peters RJ, et al. Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events Trial (CURE) Investigators Effects of pretreatment with clopidogrel and aspirin followed by long-term therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the PCI-CURE study Lancet 2001;358:527-533.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 3. Steinhubl SR, Berger PB, Mann III JT, et al. CREDO Investigators Clopidogrel for the Reduction of Events During Observation. Early and sustained dual oral antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:2411-2420.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 4. Chen ZM, Jiang LX, Chen YP, et al. COMMIT (ClOpidogrel and Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction Trial) Collaborative Group Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin in 45,852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomised placebo-controlled trial Lancet 2005;366:1607-1621.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 5. Sabatine MS, Cannon CP, Gibson CM, et al. CLARITY-TIMI 28 Investigators Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin and fibrinolytic therapy for myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation N Engl J Med 2005;352:1179-1189.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 6. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes N Engl J Med 2007;357:2001-2015.[CrossRef][Medline] 7. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators Intensive oral antiplatelet therapy for reduction of ischaemic events including stent thrombosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and stenting in the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial: a subanalysis of a randomised trial Lancet 2008;371:1353-1363.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 8. Bhatt DL. Intensifying platelet inhibition—navigating between Scylla and Charybdis N Engl J Med 2007;357:2078-2081.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 9. Patrono C, Coller B, FitzGerald GA, Hirsh J, Roth G. Platelet-active drugs: the relationships among dose, effectiveness, and side effects: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy Chest 2004;126:234S-264S.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 10. Angiolillo DJ, Fernandez-Ortiz A, Bernardo E, et al. Variability in individual responsiveness to clopidogrel: clinical implications, management, and future perspectives J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:1505-1516.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 11. Matetzky S, Shenkman B, Guetta V, et al. Clopidogrel resistance is associated with increased risk of recurrent atherothrombotic events in patients with acute myocardial infarction Circulation 2004;109:3171-3175.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 12. Buonamici P, Marcucci R, Migliorini A, et al. Impact of platelet reactivity after clopidogrel administration on drug-eluting stent thrombosis J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:2312-2317.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 13. Gurbel PA, Bliden KP, Guyer K, et al. Platelet reactivity in patients and recurrent events post-stenting: results of the PREPARE POST-STENTING study J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:1820-1826.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 14. Cuisset T, Frere C, Quilici J, et al. High post-treatment platelet reactivity identified low-responders to dual antiplatelet therapy at increased risk of recurrent cardiovascular events after stenting for acute coronary syndrome J Thromb Haemost 2006;4:542-549.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 15. Ajzenberg N, Aubry P, Huisse MG, et al. Enhanced shear-induced platelet aggregation in patients who experience subacute stent thrombosis: a case-control study J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:1753-1756.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 16. Gurbel PA, Bliden KP, Zaman KA, et al. Clopidogrel loading with eptifibatide to arrest the reactivity of platelets: results of the Clopidogrel Loading with Eptifibatide to Arrest the Reactivity of Platelets (CLEAR PLATELETS) study Circulation 2005;111:1153-1159.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 17. Von Beckerath N, Taubert D, Pogatsa-Murray G, Schömig E, Kastrati A, Schömig A. Absorption, metabolization, and antiplatelet effects of 300-, 600-, and 900-mg loading doses of clopidogrel: results of the ISAR-CHOICE (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Choose Between 3 High Oral Doses for Immediate Clopidogrel Effect) trial Circulation 2005;112:2946-2950.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 18. Angiolillo DJ, Shoemaker SB, Desai B, et al. Randomized comparison of a high clopidogrel maintenance dose in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease: results of the Optimizing Antiplatelet Therapy in Diabetes Mellitus (OPTIMUS) study Circulation 2007;115:708-716.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 19. Storey RF, Husted S, Harrington RA, et al. Inhibition of platelet aggregation by AZD6140, a reversible oral P2Y12 receptor antagonist, compared with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:1852-1856.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 20. Wiviott SD, Trenk D, Frelinger AL, et al. PRINCIPLE-TIMI 44 Investigators Prasugrel compared with high loading- and maintenance-dose clopidogrel in patients with planned percutaneous coronary intervention: the Prasugrel in Comparison to Clopidogrel for Inhibition of Platelet Activation and Aggregation-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 44 trial Circulation 2007;116:2923-2932.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 21. Goto S. Cilostazol: potential mechanism of action for antithrombotic effects accompanied by a low rate of bleeding Atheroscler Suppl 2005;6:3-11.[Medline] 22. Lee BK, Lee SW, Park SW, et al. Effects of triple antiplatelet therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel and cilostazol on platelet aggregation and P-selectin expression in patients undergoing coronary artery stent implantation Am J Cardiol 2007;100:610-614.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 23. Price MJ, Endemann S, Gollapudi RR, et al. Prognostic significance of post-clopidogrel platelet reactivity assessed by a point-of-care assay on thrombotic events after drug-eluting stent implantation Eur Heart J 2008;29:992-1000.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 24. Jakubowski JA, Payne CD, Li YG, et al. The use of the VerifyNow P2Y12 point-of-care device to monitor platelet function across a range of P2Y12 inhibition levels following prasugrel and clopidogrel administration Thromb Haemost 2008;99:409-415.[Web of Science][Medline] 25. Jeong YH, Kim IS, Choi BR, Kwak CH, Hwang JY. The optimal threshold of high post-treatment platelet reactivity could be defined by a point-of-care VerifyNow P2Y12 assay Eur Heart J 2008July 9 [E-pub ahead of print]. 26. Bliden KP, DiChiara J, Tantry US, Bassi AK, Chaganti SK, Gurbel PA. Increased risk in patients with high platelet aggregation receiving chronic clopidogrel therapy undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: is the current antiplatelet therapy adequate? J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:657-666.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 27. Serebruany VL, Steinhubl SR, Berger PB, Malinin AI, Bhatt DL, Topol EJ. Variability in platelet responsiveness to clopidogrel among 544 individuals J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:246-251.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 28. Hochholzer W, Trenk D, Bestehorn HP, et al. Impact of the degree of peri-interventional platelet inhibition after loading with clopidogrel on early clinical outcome of elective coronary stent placement J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:1742-1750.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 29. Meadows TA, Bhatt DL. Clinical aspects of platelet inhibitors and thrombus formation Circ Res 2007;100:1261-1275.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 30. Lee SW, Park SW, Hong MK, et al. Comparison of cilostazol and clopidogrel after successful coronary stenting Am J Cardiol 2005;95:859-862.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 31. Park SW, Lee CW, Kim HS, et al. Comparison of cilostazol versus ticlopidine therapy after stent implantation Am J Cardiol 1999;84:511-514.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 32. Lee SW, Park SW, Hong MK, et al. Triple versus dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting: impact on stent thrombosis J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:1833-1837.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 33. Angiolillo DJ, Capranzano P, Goto S, et al. A randomized study assessing the impact of cilostazol on platelet function profiles in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease on dual antiplatelet therapy: results of the OPTIMUS-2 study Eur Heart J 2008;29:2202-2211.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 34. Douglas Jr. JS, Holmes Jr. DR, Kereiakes DJ, et al. Cilostazol for Restenosis Trial (CREST) Investigators Coronary stent restenosis in patients treated with cilostazol Circulation 2005;112:2826-2832.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 35. Lee SW, Park SW, Kim YH, et al. DECLARE-Long Study Investigators Comparison of triple versus dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation (from the DECLARE-Long trial) Am J Cardiol 2007;100:1103-1108.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 36. Lee SW, Park SW, Kim YH, et al. Drug-eluting stenting followed by cilostazol treatment reduces late restenosis in patients with diabetes mellitus: the DECLARE-DIABETES trial (A Randomized Comparison of Triple Antiplatelet Therapy with Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in Diabetic Patients) J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:1181-1187.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 37. Farb A, Boam AB. Stent thrombosis redux—the FDA perspective N Engl J Med 2007;356:984-987.[CrossRef][Medline] 38. Gurbel PA, Becker RC, Mann KG, Steinhubl SR, Michelson AD. Platelet function monitoring in patients with coronary artery disease J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:1822-1834.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 39. Geisler T, Langer H, Wydymus M, et al. Low response to clopidogrel is associated with cardiovascular outcome after coronary stent implantation Eur Heart J 2006;27:2420-2425.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Related Article
-
Inside This Issue
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2009 53: A24.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
E. M. deGoma, G. Rivera, S. M. Lilly, M. H. U. Usman, and E. R. Mohler III
Personalized vascular medicine: Individualizing drug therapy
Vascular Medicine,
October 1, 2011;
16(5):
391 - 404.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Ueno, J. L. Ferreiro, S. D. Tomasello, A. Tello-Montoliu, D. Capodanno, N. Seecheran, M. Kodali, K. Dharmashankar, B. Desai, R. K. Charlton, et al.
Impact of Pentoxifylline on Platelet Function Profiles in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Coronary Artery Disease on Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Aspirin and Clopidogrel
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv.,
August 1, 2011;
4(8):
905 - 912.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. B. Damani and E. J. Topol
Emerging Genomic Applications in Coronary Artery Disease
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv.,
May 1, 2011;
4(5):
473 - 482.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. W. Park, J. J. Park, S.-P. Lee, I.-Y. Oh, J.-W. Suh, H.-M. Yang, H.-Y. Lee, H.-J. Kang, Y.-S. Cho, B.-K. Koo, et al.
Cilostazol attenuates on-treatment platelet reactivity in patients with CYP2C19 loss of function alleles receiving dual antiplatelet therapy: a genetic substudy of the CILON-T randomised controlled trial
Heart,
April 15, 2011;
97(8):
641 - 647.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Price, P. B. Berger, P. S. Teirstein, J.-F. Tanguay, D. J. Angiolillo, D. Spriggs, S. Puri, M. Robbins, K. N. Garratt, O. F. Bertrand, et al.
Standard- vs High-Dose Clopidogrel Based on Platelet Function Testing After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The GRAVITAS Randomized Trial
JAMA,
March 16, 2011;
305(11):
1097 - 1105.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Hall and C. D. Mazer
Review Article: Antiplatelet Drugs: A Review of Their Pharmacology and Management in the Perioperative Period
Anesth. Analg.,
February 1, 2011;
112(2):
292 - 318.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.-W. Suh, S.-P. Lee, K.-W. Park, H.-Y. Lee, H.-J. Kang, B.-K. Koo, Y.-S. Cho, T.-J. Youn, I.-H. Chae, D.-J. Choi, et al.
Multicenter Randomized Trial Evaluating the Efficacy of Cilostazol on Ischemic Vascular Complications After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for Coronary Heart Disease: Results of the CILON-T (Influence of CILostazol-based triple antiplatelet therapy ON ischemic complication after drug-eluting stenT implantation) Trial
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
January 18, 2011;
57(3):
280 - 289.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Antoniucci
No Role for Triple Antiplatelet Therapy?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
January 18, 2011;
57(3):
290 - 291.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. R. Holmes Jr, D. J. Kereiakes, S. Garg, P. W. Serruys, G. J. Dehmer, S. G. Ellis, D. O. Williams, T. Kimura, and D. J. Moliterno
Stent Thrombosis
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
October 19, 2010;
56(17):
1357 - 1365.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Gladding, L. Panattoni, M. Webster, L. Cho, and S. Ellis
Clopidogrel Pharmacogenomics: Next Steps: A Clinical Algorithm, Gene-Gene Interactions, and an Elusive Outcomes Trial
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv.,
October 1, 2010;
3(10):
995 - 1000.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.-J. Hwang, Y.-H. Jeong, I.-S. Kim, K.-S. Park, M.-K. Kang, J.-S. Koh, J. R. Park, Y. Park, E.-H. Koh, C. H. Kwak, et al.
Cytochrome 2C19 Polymorphism and Response to Adjunctive Cilostazol Versus High Maintenance-Dose Clopidogrel in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Circ Cardiovasc Interv,
October 1, 2010;
3(5):
450 - 459.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Bonello, U. S. Tantry, R. Marcucci, R. Blindt, D. J. Angiolillo, R. Becker, D. L. Bhatt, M. Cattaneo, J. P. Collet, T. Cuisset, et al.
Consensus and Future Directions on the Definition of High On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity to Adenosine Diphosphate
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
September 14, 2010;
56(12):
919 - 933.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Writing Committee Members, D. R. Holmes Jr, G. J. Dehmer, S. Kaul, D. Leifer, P. T. O'Gara, and C. M. Stein
ACCF/AHA Clopidogrel Clinical Alert: Approaches to the FDA "Boxed Warning": A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents and the American Heart Association
Circulation,
August 3, 2010;
122(5):
537 - 557.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.- S. Kang, B. J. Kwon, J. E. Kim, and M. H. Han
Preinterventional Clopidogrel Response Variability for Coil Embolization of Intracranial Aneurysms: Clinical Implications
AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol.,
August 1, 2010;
31(7):
1206 - 1210.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. R. Holmes Jr, G. J. Dehmer, S. Kaul, D. Leifer, P. T. O'Gara, and C. M. Stein
ACCF/AHA Clopidogrel Clinical Alert: Approaches to the FDA "Boxed Warning": A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents and the American Heart Association Endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
July 20, 2010;
56(4):
321 - 341.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Gurbel, U. S. Tantry, A. R. Shuldiner, and D. J. Kereiakes
Genotyping: One Piece of the Puzzle to Personalize Antiplatelet Therapy
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
July 6, 2010;
56(2):
112 - 116.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y.-H. Jeong, I.-S. Kim, Y. Park, M.-K. Kang, J.-S. Koh, S.-J. Hwang, C. H. Kwak, and J.-Y. Hwang
Carriage of Cytochrome 2C19 Polymorphism Is Associated With Risk of High Post-Treatment Platelet Reactivity on High Maintenance-Dose Clopidogrel of 150 mg/day: Results of the ACCEL-DOUBLE (Accelerated Platelet Inhibition by a Double Dose of Clopidogrel According to Gene Polymorphism) Study
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv.,
July 1, 2010;
3(7):
731 - 741.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Price, A. Kalyanasundaram, and P. B. Berger
The Evidence Base for Platelet Function Testing in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Circ Cardiovasc Interv,
June 1, 2010;
3(3):
277 - 283.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. R. Dixon, C. L. Grines, and W. W. O'Neill
The Year in Interventional Cardiology
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
May 18, 2010;
55(20):
2272 - 2286.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Gurbel, K. P. Bliden, K. Butler, M. J. Antonino, C. Wei, R. Teng, L. Rasmussen, R. F. Storey, T. Nielsen, J. W. Eikelboom, et al.
Response to Ticagrelor in Clopidogrel Nonresponders and Responders and Effect of Switching Therapies: The RESPOND Study
Circulation,
March 16, 2010;
121(10):
1188 - 1199.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Gurbel and U. S. Tantry
Combination Antithrombotic Therapies
Circulation,
February 2, 2010;
121(4):
569 - 583.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y.-H. Jeong, J.-Y. Hwang, I.-S. Kim, Y. Park, S.-J. Hwang, S.-W. Lee, C. H. Kwak, and S.-W. Park
Adding Cilostazol to Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Achieves Greater Platelet Inhibition than High Maintenance Dose Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Results of the Adjunctive Cilostazol Versus High Maintenance Dose Clopidogrel in Patients With AMI (ACCEL-AMI) Study
Circ Cardiovasc Interv,
February 1, 2010;
3(1):
17 - 26.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. P. Faxon
Women Are Like Men ... Sometimes
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
November 17, 2009;
54(21):
1946 - 1948.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. P. Giugliano and E. Braunwald
The Year in Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
October 13, 2009;
54(16):
1544 - 1555.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cilostazol or High-Dose Clopidogrel for Platelet Resistance?
Journal Watch Cardiology,
May 6, 2009;
2009(506):
5 - 5.
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
Methods
