• Jean-Philippe Collet, Thomas Cuisset, Grégoire Rangé, Guillaume Cayla, Simon Elhadad, Christophe Pouillot, Patrick Henry, Pascal Motreff, Didier Carrié, Ziad Boueri, Loic Belle, Eric Van Belle, Hélène Rousseau, Pierre Aubry, Jacques Monségu, Pierre Sabouret, Stephen A O'Connor, Jérémie Abtan, Mathieu Kerneis, Christophe Saint-Etienne, Olivier Barthélémy, Farzin Beygui, Johanne Silvain, Eric Vicaut, Gilles Montalescot, and ARCTIC Investigators.
• Institut de Cardiologie Hôpital Pitié–Salpêtrière and Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France.
• N. Engl. J. Med.. 2012 Nov 29;367(22):2100-9.

BackgroundPatients' responses to oral antiplatelet therapy are subject to variation. Bedside monitoring offers the opportunity to improve outcomes after coronary stenting by individualizing therapy.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsThis 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.).

29 keywords...

hide…