Adverse clinical outcomes associated with a low dose and a high dose of aspirin following percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Platelet Function Tests Predicting the Efficacy and Safety of Aspirin Secondary Prevention

OBJECTIVE

To precisely prevent stroke, we evaluated three platelet function tests and their associations with clinical outcomes in ischemic stroke patients.

METHODS

On-treatment platelet reactivity of acute minor stroke patients taking aspirin plus clopidogrel was tested by light transmittance aggregometry (LTA), thromboelastography (TEG) and platelet function analyzer (PFA). Mann-Whitney U tests and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were used to assess their associations with recurrent events and clinical outcome prediction.

RESULTS

127 acute minor stroke patients were stringently selected and followed for 13 months. Eight patients (6.3%) self-reported the recurrence and 13 (10.2%) patients self-reported bleeding. Recurrent patients displayed significantly higher on-treatment platelet reactivity when measured with LTA (p = 0.030) and PFA (p < 0.001). Further ROC analysis demonstrated that LTA and PFA had modest-to-fair ability to predict stroke recurrence (LTA: area under the curve [AUC], 0.765; 95% CI, 0.584-0.945, PFA: AUC, 0.832; 95% CI, 0.658-1.000). However, TEG (measured by the platelet inhibition rate) could not detect the difference between recurrent patients and non-recurrent patients (p = 0.515) and predict recurrent events (AUC, 0.569; 95% CI, 0.368-0.770). None of the tests were associated with bleeding except for PFA (p < 0.001), with AUC of PFA reaching 0.772 (0.726-0.818).

CONCLUSIONS

Of the three tests assessed, the predictive accuracies of PFA and LTA were satisfying for aspirin secondary prevention, while TEG's performance was poor. Only PFA could provide accurate prognostic information for bleeding.

Low-Dose Aspirin Is Adequate for Venous Thromboembolism Prevention Following Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) are at risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE) without adequate prophylaxis. Since the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons issued guidelines in 2007 recommending aspirin 325 mg bis in die for 6 weeks, aspirin has been favored as the main VTE prophylaxis. However, the appropriate dose and duration of aspirin are not well-studied. This systematic review aims to identify any differences between high and low dose as well as duration for aspirin thromboprophylaxis after TJA as outlined by previous studies.

METHODS

A search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed, including articles up to July 2016. Studies were included if they contained at least 1 cohort that underwent TJA with aspirin as the sole chemoprophylaxis and reported either (1) symptomatic VTE or (2) secondary outcomes such as major bleeding or 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Forty-five papers were included. There were no significant differences in symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, 90-day mortality, or major bleeding between patients receiving low-dose or high-dose aspirin. Patients treated with aspirin for <4 weeks had a higher risk of major bleeding (1.59%) vs patients treated for 4 weeks (0.15%), which may be attributed to premature cessation or differential reporting. Patients treated with aspirin for <4 weeks had a statistically higher 90-day mortality (1.95%) vs patients treated for 4 weeks (0.07%). There was no significant difference between incidence of pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis and the durations of aspirin treatment.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that low-dose aspirin is not inferior to high-dose aspirin for VTE thromboprophylaxis in TJA patients. Additionally, patients treated with aspirin for less than 4 weeks may have a higher risk of major bleeding and 90-day mortality compared to patients treated for a longer duration.

Aspirin Versus Clopidogrel Monotherapy for the Treatment of Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Although aspirin (ASA) is the mainstay of treatment for the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke, the Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischemic Events (CAPRIE) trial showed ASA monotherapy to be inferior to clopidogrel in preventing recurrent adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with high cardiac risks. Here, we aimed to systematically compare ASA versus clopidogrel monotherapy for the treatment of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods

Electronic databases were searched and studies were included if they compared ASA versus clopidogrel monotherapy for the treatment of patients with CAD and they reported adverse clinical outcomes. The latest version of RevMan software (version 5.3) was used as the statistical tool for the data analysis. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were generated to interpret the data.

Results

A total number of 5497 patients (from years 2003 to 2011) were treated with ASA monotherapy, whereas 2544 patients were treated with clopidogrel monotherapy. Results of this analysis showed no significant difference in composite endpoints (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.47–2.10; P = 0.98), all-cause mortality (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82–1.33; P = 0.71), cardiac death (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.17–4.74; P = 0.89, myocardial infarction (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.52–1.36; P = 0.48), stroke (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.39–4.06; P = 0.70), and bleeding defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC [grade 3 or above]) (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.78–2.12; P = 0.33).

Conclusion

This analysis did not show any significant difference in all-cause mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and BARC grade 3 or above among CAD patients who were treated with either ASA or clopidogrel monotherapy. However, as a result of the limited data, this hypothesis should be confirmed in other major trials.

Impact of right coronary dominance on triple-vessel coronary artery disease: A cross-sectional study

This study was conducted to investigate the relationship between right coronary dominance and coronary angiographic characteristics in patients with or without significant coronary artery disease (CAD).A total of 2225 patients undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) between January 2011 and November 2014 were recruited in our study. Based on the CAG results, patients were divided into the left dominance (LD) group, right dominance (RD) group, and co-dominance (CD) group. Multinomial logistic regression was applied to analyze the relationships between coronary dominance and triple-vessel CAD.We found that patients with RD had a higher prevalence of triple-vessel CAD (36.6% vs 27.3%, P = .008) and significant stenosis in the right coronary artery (40.5% vs 29.2%, P = .001). In addition, results of multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that RD was significantly associated with the triple-vessel disease (odds ratio 1.768, 95% confidence interval 1.057-2.956, P = .030).In conclusion, RD positively correlated with triple-vessel CAD rather than LD or CD in patients. This result suggested that RD may serve as a risk factor for triple-vessel CAD and more effective measures should be taken in RD patients to prevent fatal cardiovascular events.

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus first-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Even if drug-eluting stents (DES) showed beneficial effects in patients with coronary artery diseases (CADs), limitations have been observed with the first-generation durable polymer DES (DP-DES). Recently, biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES) have been approved to be used as an alternative to DP-DES, with potential benefits. We aimed to systematically compare BP-DES with the first-generation DP-DES using a large number of randomized patients.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BP-DES with first-generation DP-DES. The main endpoints were the long-term (≥2 years) adverse clinical outcomes that were reported with these 2 types of DES. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the analysis was carried out by RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Twelve trials with a total number of 13,480 patients (7730 and 5750 patients were treated by BP-DES and first-generation DP-DES, respectively) were included. During a long-term follow-up period of ≥2 years, mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were not significantly different between these 2 groups with OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66-1.07; P = .16, I = 0%, OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.45-2.27; P = .98, I = 0%, OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.75-1.11; P = .37, I = 0% and OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.44-1.67; P = .65, I = 0%, respectively. Long-term total stent thrombosis (ST), definite ST, and probable ST were also not significantly different between BP-DES and the first-generation DP-DES with OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.50-1.18; P = .22, I = 0%, OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.43-1.18; P = .19, I = 0% and OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.56-3.08; P = .53, I = 6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Long-term mortality, MI, TLR, MACEs, and ST were not significantly different between BP-DES and the first-generation DP-DES. However, the follow-up period was restricted to only 3 years in this analysis.