Procedural complexity independent of P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) values is associated with acute in situ thrombosis in Pipeline flow diversion of cerebral aneurysms

Evaluation of acute intraprocedural thromboembolism risk factors in endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Acute intraprocedural thromboembolism (AIT) is not a rare complication that usually occurs immediately after stent deployment during endovascular aneurysm treatment (EVAT).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the 386 EVAT of 320 patients for the AIT occurrence between 2014 and 2018. The patient's comorbidities, aneurysm location, antiplatelet type, and thrombocyte reactivity to P2Y12 inhibitors were assessed. AIT severity was categorized as severe (hyperacute thrombus filling >50 % stent lumen) or mild (in-stent thrombus <50 %, side/integrated branch occlusion, or distal cortical branch occlusion). The EVAT was categorized on a location basis (proximal or distal), accounting for the terminal edges of the deployed stent.

RESULTS

30 (7.8 %) of 386 EVAT procedures were complicated with AIT. There were 9 (30 %) severe AIT and 21 (70 %) mild AIT, consisting of 12 (40 %) partial in-stent thrombi and 9 (30 %) distal cortical or side branch emboli. Patient comorbidities and type of antiplatelet regimen were not different between the AIT group and uncomplicated cases. Mild AIT was higher in the flow diversion (FD) versus stent-assisted coiling (SAC), (8.1 %, and 2.3 %, respectively, p = 0.012). Deployment of braided SAC (OR: 8.5, p = 0.04) or FD (OR: 18.8, p < 0.01) resulted in significantly higher AIT rates compared to laser-cut SAC. Additionally, stent placement in distal EVAT (beyond the ICA bifurcation or basilar apex) was associated with a significantly higher AIT risk (OR: 8.5, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Patient comorbidities and type of antiplatelet regimen had no association with AIT when sufficient anti-aggregation was achieved. However, AIT risk surged with braid-SAC or FD, especially in the treatment of distal complex aneurysms.

Serial VerifyNow P2Y12 platelet reactivity units in cerebral aneurysm patients treated with ticagrelor surrounding stent-coiling or flow diversion

INTRODUCTION

Platelet function testing using serial VerifyNow P2Y12 platelet reactivity units (PRUs) is established for guiding clopidogrel antiplatelet therapy in cerebral aneurysm stenting procedures. However, for ticagrelor, the impact of serial PRU testing and the identification of safe PRU ranges remains unexplored.

METHODS

Flow diversion stenting (n = 232) and stent-assisted coiling procedures (n = 83) performed 05/2017-12/2021 were reviewed. Out of these, 31 flow diversion and 18 stent-coiling procedures were performed on 44 patients using ticagrelor. Baseline demographics, ticagrelor PRUs, and clinical outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Collectively, 257 ticagrelor P2Y12 PRUs were obtained. PRUs were <100 in 192/257 (74.7%) tests. Only 11/257 (4.3%) PRUs were >200. The overall median ticagrelor PRU was 38 (IQR 11-101). Among the 49 procedures, median PRUs before the procedure (25, IQR 10-67), on the day of the procedure (68, IQR 44-117), and on the day after the procedure (37, IQR 21-79) did not show the significant differences between the groups. A total of seven thromboembolic complications occurred. Median PRUs surrounding the thromboembolic complications (median 182, IQR 148-235) were significantly higher than preprocedural (p < .001), day of surgery (p < .01), and postprocedural PRUs (p < .01). All seven procedures harbored demographic, anatomic, or procedural features increasing the risk for thromboembolic complications.

DISCUSSION

The majority of periprocedural ticagrelor PRUs were <100. PRUs at the time point of thromboembolic complications were >120. Despite procedure-complicating features in each thromboembolic case, it raises the question whether safe ticagrelor PRU levels might be lower than those commonly applied for clopidogrel.

Assessing the efficacy of VerifyNow platelet-function testing in predicting postoperative thromboembolic complications of neuroendovascular surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis (part 1)

BACKGROUND

Despite the heavily debated use of routine platelet-function testing, the VerifyNow Platelet Reactivity Unit (PRU) assay has been increasingly adopted as standard of care for assessing risk of postoperative thromboembolic complications of neuroendovascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the relationship between platelet response and risk of ischemic events from neuroendovascular surgery, assess the efficacy of point-of-care platelet-function testing in predicting thromboembolic outcomes, and assess whether a clinically useful threshold for platelet response can be defined in order to standardize guidelines.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched. Following deduplication, articles were first screened for relevance by title and abstract, followed by full text.

RESULTS

Of 735 resultant articles, 22 studies consisting of 3266 patients undergoing neuroendovascular intervention were included. Diagnoses included both intracranial and extracranial pathologies, of which 45.8% were treated with flow diversion, 16.4% with stent-assisted coil embolization, 15.8% with intracranial stenting, 12.0% with simple coil embolization, 3.4% with balloon-assisted coil embolization, 3.6% with extracranial stenting, and 3.0% with an alternate method. 54.5% (12/22) of studies determined platelet hyporesponse to be an independent predictor of postoperative thromboembolic complications, with 27.3% (6/22) of studies reporting a similar, but non-statistically significant trend. 18.2% (4/22) of studies found no relationship between platelet response and postoperative thromboembolic complications. The estimated clinical threshold for PRU to prevent thromboembolic complications varied greatly across studies (Range: > 144-295 PRU). Meta-analysis found platelet hyporesponse to have a 2.23-fold increased risk of thromboembolic complications compared to normoresponders (RR = 2.23, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

While PRU demonstrates a significant predictive value for postoperative thromboembolic complications of neuroendovascular surgery, the target therapeutic threshold for minimizing ischemic events remains unclear. Further studies, such as large multicenter cohorts of the existing data, are needed to standardize guidelines.

Verifynow P2Y12 PRU-Guided Modification of Clopidogrel for Prevention of Recurrent Ischemic Stroke: A Real-World Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Clopidogrel resistance causes recurrent stroke. However, outcomes of modified antiplatelet medications to prevent recurrent ischemic stroke are not well known.

METHODS

Patients who received clopidogrel with and without modification as initial treatment for stroke were recruited and compared. The primary outcome was ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction at the 1-year follow-up. The secondary outcome was bleeding complications.

RESULTS

Overall, 206 patients treated with clopidogrel were enrolled and were divided into the modification (n = 39) and no modification (n = 167) groups. There was a significant difference in the incidence of severe cerebral arterial stenosis between the two groups (modification group, 16/39, 41.03%; no modification group, 36/167, 21.56%, P = 0.012) at baseline. The loss to follow-up rate was 12.14% (25/206). After adjustment for severe cerebral artery stenosis, antiplatelet modification based on the platelet reactivity unit (PRU) value significantly improved in the per protocol set (odds ratio 0.142, 95% confidential interval 0.022-0.898, P = 0.038). The area under the curve of the different PRU cutoff values were 0.630, 0.605, and 0.591 (P = 0.016, 0.051, and 0.092) for PRU 190, 208, and 235, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Verifynow P2Y₁₂ PRU-guided modification of clopidogrel for ischemic stroke significantly improved or prevented recurrence at the 1-year follow-up. Our findings suggest that clopidogrel therapy based on the PRU cutoff value of 190 should be considered to improve outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02618265 (December 1, 2015).

The utility of platelet inhibition testing in patients undergoing Pipeline embolization of intracranial aneurysms

BACKGROUND

The utility of using the VerifyNow P2Y12 platelet inhibition assay in patients undergoing Pipeline embolization of intracranial aneurysms remains controversial. As we have routinely employed the assay for patients undergoing flow diversion, we elected to explore the relationship between P2Y12 hyporesponse as indicated by a P2Y12 Reaction Units (PRU) value >200 and treatment outcomes, including intraprocedural platelet aggregation and ischemic complications.

METHODS

All successful intracranial aneurysm Pipeline treatments performed at our institution from November 2011 to May 2019 were included. The rate of P2Y12 hyporesponse and treatment outcomes were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to determine independent predictors of treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

333 qualifying treatments were performed in 297 patients. Clopidogrel hyporesponse was initially noted in 24%, falling to 17% by day-of-procedure by dose titration. A glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor was administered prophylactically in 3% of cases for persistent, profound hyporesponse. 27 (8.1%) patients developed acute platelet aggregation; only 6 demonstrated day-of-procedure P2Y12 hyporesponse. Day-of-procedure hyporesponse was not associated with intraprocedural platelet aggregation or ischemic complications. Greater Pipeline embolization device (PED) diameter was associated with a reduced odds of platelet aggregation (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; p=0.019). Antiplatelet non-compliance (OR 25.20, 95% CI 3.86 to 164.61; p=0.001) and treatment of posterior circulation aneurysms (OR 5.23, 95% CI 1.22 to 22.33; p=0.026) were the only independent predictors of ischemic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

P2Y12 hyporesponse was not associated with acute platelet aggregation or ischemic complications in our patients undergoing Pipeline embolization of intracranial aneurysms, possibly due to aggressive management of the hyporesponse using clopidogrel dose titration and/or GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration.

Dual Testing to Achieve Low On-treatment Platelet Reactivity for Aneurysm Embolization

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Although point-of-care tests are used extensively to test platelet function before endovascular aneurysm treatment, their use and validity are still debated. We compared the results of two point-of-care tests (VerifyNow® and Multiplate®) for assessing patients treated with stents and flow diverters and determined their relation to periprocedural complications.

METHODS

All patients undergoing treatment of intracranial aneurysms were tested using both methods and were retrospectively evaluated. Patients with acute subarachnoid hemorrhage and those who had to be maintained on anticoagulants for unrelated diseases were excluded. An acceptable level of platelet inhibition was required on both tests to commence with treatment, otherwise antiplatelet medication was adjusted to reach this level.

RESULTS

Mean PRU (platelet reactivity units) and ADP AUC (adenosine diphosphate area under the aggregation curve) were 68 ± 66 and 23 ± 15, respectively, in 295 patients. Both tests showed a good correlation (r = 0.45). Both tests were able to predict hemorrhagic events but not ischemic events. When patients with very low reactivity (PRU < 60) were compared to the rest of the group, there were more hemorrhagic events in the first group but the overall rate of complications were similar (p = 0.27).

CONCLUSION

In this largest study comparing two widely used commercial platelet function tests, the correlation between the tests were less than ideal; however, the very low platelet reactivity attained by the help of dual platelet testing did not result in an increased overall complication rate.

Twisting: Incidence and Risk Factors of an Intraprocedural Challenge Associated With Pipeline Flow Diversion of Cerebral Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Pipeline Embolization Device (PED; Medtronic) "twisting" manifests with the appearance of a "figure 8" in perpendicular planes on digital subtraction angiography. This phenomenon has received little attention in the literature, requires technical precision to remediate, and has potential to cause ischemic stroke if not properly remediated.

OBJECTIVE

To report incidence, risk factors, and sequelae of PED twisting and to discuss techniques to remediate a PED twist.

METHODS

Case images were reviewed for instances of twisting from a prospectively-maintained, Institutional Review Board-approved cohort of patients undergoing flow diversion for cerebral aneurysm.

RESULTS

From August 2011 to December 2017, 999 PED flow diverting stents were attempted in 782 cases for 653 patients. A total of 25 PED twists were observed while treating 20 patients (2.50%, 25/999). Multivariate analysis revealed predictors of twisting to be: Large and giant aneurysms (odds ratio (OR) = 9.66, P = .005; OR = 27.47, P < .001), increased PED length (OR = 1.14, P < .001), and advanced patient age (OR = 1.07, P = .002). Twisted PEDs were able to be remediated 75% of the time, and procedural success was achieved in 90% of cases. PED twisting was not found to be a significant cause of major or minor complications. However, at long-term follow-up, there was a trend towards poor occlusion outcomes for the cases that encountered twisting.

CONCLUSION

Twisting is a rare event during PED deployment that was more likely to occur while treating large aneurysms with long devices in older patients. While twisting did not lead to major complications in this study, remediation can be challenging and may be associated with inferior occlusion outcomes.

Periprocedural complications of second-generation flow diverter treatment using Pipeline Flex for unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Flow diverters are a breakthrough treatment for large and giant intracranial aneurysms but carry a risk of periprocedural death or major stroke. Pipeline Flex is a second-generation device that is thought to have lower complication rates because of improvements in the delivery system as well as increased operator experience. Our objective was to analyze the risk of periprocedural death or major complications using Pipeline Flex for unruptured intracranial aneurysms.

Methods

A systematic search of three databases was performed for studies of ≥10 treatments using Pipeline Flex for unruptured intracranial aneurysms (2014–2019) using PRISMA guidelines. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool the rates of periprocedural (<30 days) death, major ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and minor stroke/transient ischemic attack.

Results

We included eight studies reporting 901 treatments in 879 patients. Periprocedural mortality (<30 days) was 0.8% (5/901; 95% CI 0.4% to 1.5%; I2=0%). Rate of major complications (death, major ischemic stroke, or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage) was 1.8% (14/901; 95% CI 1.0% to 2.7%; I2=0%). Aneurysm size ≥10 mm was a statistically significant predictor of a major complication (OR 6.4; 95% CI 2.0 to 20.7; p=0.002). Risk of a major complication in aneurysms <10 mm was 0.9% (95% CI 0.3% to 1.7%; I2=0%). The meta-analysis was limited by the predominance of anterior circulation aneurysms.

Conclusion

Treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms using the Pipeline Flex flow diverter has a low periprocedural risk of death (0.8%) or major complication (1.8%). The risk of a major complication is significantly higher for large/giant aneurysms (4.4%) and is very low for aneurysms <10 mm (0.9%).