From the Department of Paediatric Intensive Care, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Department of Cardiovascular Imaging, Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
ASAIO J. 2019 Jan;65(1):84-93. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000768.
The optimal method for monitoring antiplatelet therapy in children supported with ventricular assist devices (VADs) is unknown. We conducted a retrospective study to compare Thromboelastography Platelet Mapping (TEG/PM) with multiple electrode platelet aggregometry (MEA) on a Multiplate analyzer (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany). We analyzed data from 66 paired blood samples from 9 patients <16 years of age on VAD where platelet function was simultaneously measured with TEG/PM and MEA. Antiplatelet dose-response relationships and intraindividual variability during steady state therapy were determined. Agreement in determination of therapeutic antiplatelet therapy was poor (arachidonic acid, κ 0.23; adenosine diphosphate [ADP], κ 0.13). Rate of aspirin and clopidogrel resistance was much higher when determined using TEG/PM than MEA. In patients receiving ≥5 mg/kg/day aspirin, 72% of TEG/PM measurements showed subtherapeutic response compared with 11% of MEA measurements. There was evidence of a dose-response relationship with clopidogrel and MEA ADP-induced aggregation (R2 = 0.56; p < 0.0001); however, there was no association between dose and TEG/PM% ADP inhibition (p = 0.15). Intraindividual variability in platelet reactivity was far greater when measured by TEG/PM during steady state therapy. Multiple electrode platelet aggregometry appears to be more reliable than TEG/PM for monitoring antiplatelet therapy in children supported with VAD.
监测接受心室辅助装置 (VAD) 支持的儿童的抗血小板治疗的最佳方法尚不清楚。我们进行了一项回顾性研究,比较了血栓弹力图血小板图 (TEG/PM) 和多电极血小板聚集仪 (MEA) 在多板分析仪 (罗氏诊断,曼海姆,德国) 上的应用。我们分析了 9 名年龄小于 16 岁的 VAD 患者的 66 对血液样本数据,这些患者同时使用 TEG/PM 和 MEA 测量血小板功能。确定了抗血小板剂量反应关系和稳态治疗期间的个体内变异性。治疗性抗血小板治疗的测定一致性较差(花生四烯酸,κ 0.23;二磷酸腺苷 [ADP],κ 0.13)。与 MEA 相比,使用 TEG/PM 确定阿司匹林和氯吡格雷抵抗的发生率要高得多。在接受≥5mg/kg/天阿司匹林治疗的患者中,72%的 TEG/PM 测量结果显示治疗反应不足,而 MEA 测量结果为 11%。氯吡格雷和 MEA ADP 诱导聚集与 MEA 之间存在剂量反应关系(R2=0.56;p<0.0001);然而,TEG/PM%ADP 抑制与剂量之间无关联(p=0.15)。在稳态治疗期间,通过 TEG/PM 测量时,血小板反应性的个体内变异性要大得多。在监测接受 VAD 支持的儿童的抗血小板治疗方面,多电极血小板聚集仪似乎比 TEG/PM 更可靠。