The use of alternatives to clopidogrel in flow-diversion treatment with the Pipeline embolization device

19Citations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: Thromboembolic complications continue to be encountered with Pipeline embolization devices (PEDs) despite routine clopidogrel/aspirin antiplatelet therapy. This study examined the safety and efficacy of prasugrel in the management of clopidogrel-resistant patients treated for cerebral aneurysms. Methods: Four hundred thirty-seven consecutive patients were identified between January 2011 and May 2016. Patients allergic, or having less than 30% platelet inhibition, to a daily 75-mg dose of clopidogrel received 10 mg of prasugrel daily (n = 20) or 90 mg of ticagrelor twice daily (n = 2). The mean (± SD) follow-up duration was 15.8 ± 12.4 months. The primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score registered before discharge and at each follow-up visit. To control confounding, multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression and propensity score conditioning were used. Results: Twenty-six (5.9%) of 437 patients presented with a subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). The mean patient age was 56.3 years, and 62 were women (14.2%). One of the 7 patients lost to follow-up received prasugrel. One patient was allergic to clopidogrel and prasugrel simultaneously. All patients receiving prasugrel or ticagrelor (n = 22) had an mRS score. 2 on their latest follow-up visit (mean score 0.67 ± 1.15). In a multivariate analysis, clopidogrel did not affect the mRS score on last follow-up (p = 0.14). Multivariable logistic regression showed that clopidogrel was not associated with an increased long-term recurrence rate (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01.2.70, p = 0.21), an increased thromboembolic complication rate (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.12.1.67, p = 0.24), or an increased hemorrhagic event rate (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.91.1.64, p = 0.20). None of the patients receiving prasugrel or ticagrelor died or suffered a long-term recurrence or a hemorrhagic event; only 1 patient suffered from mild aphasia subsequent to a thromboembolic event. Three patients taking clopidogrel died during the study: 2 from acute SAH and 1 from intraparenchymal hemorrhage. Clopidogrel was not associated with an increased mortality rate (OR 2.18, 95% CI 0.11.43.27, p = 0.61). The same associations were present in propensity score.adjusted models. Conclusions: In a cohort of patients treated with PEDs, prasugrel (10 mg/day) was a safe alternative to clopidogrelresistant or clopidogrel-allergic patients, or nonresponders.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Atallah, E., Saad, H., Bekelis, K., Chalouhi, N., Tjoumakaris, S., Hasan, D., … Jabbour, P. (2018). The use of alternatives to clopidogrel in flow-diversion treatment with the Pipeline embolization device. Journal of Neurosurgery, 129(5), 1130–1135. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.5.JNS162663

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free