Corrected by:
ErratumThromb Haemost 2019; 119(10): e1-e1
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1702204
Keywords
T-TAS - antiplatelet therapy - direct oral anticoagulants - antithrombotic therapy
- diagnostic test
Introduction
Arterial and venous thrombosis play an important role in the pathogenesis of various
cardiovascular diseases, and several pharmacological agents are clinically used to
inhibit the cascade of thrombus formation. Antiplatelet agents represent the mainstay
preventive strategy against systemic arterial thrombosis, as platelets play crucial
roles in initiating thrombus formation.[1]
[2]
[3] Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and P2Y12 receptor inhibitors is established in patients with acute coronary syndrome or after
percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] In contrast, anticoagulant drugs are widely used for prophylaxis and treatment of
venous thrombosis. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely useful for the prevention
or treatment of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF)[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] and venous thromboembolism (VTE).[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25] Several diagnostic devices have recently been developed to evaluate the pathogenesis
and therapies related to thrombotic and hemorrhagic disorders.[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
Recently, the Total Thrombus-Formation Analysis System (T-TAS), a microchip-based
flow chamber system designed to evaluate thrombogenicity in whole blood, was developed
as an easy-to-use system for quantitative analysis of thrombus formation. T-TAS can
assess the influence of antithrombotic agents on platelet activation and coagulation
reactions over a collagen or collagen/tissue thromboplastin-coated surface.[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41] Here, we compare the scientific principle of T-TAS to other existing platelet function
tests and review the use of T-TAS for measuring the antithrombotic effects of several
antithrombotic agents in patients with various cardiovascular diseases.
Measurement of Thrombogenicity by T-TAS
Measurement of Thrombogenicity by T-TAS
As shown in the Virchow Triad, thrombosis is caused by a defect in blood flow, blood
vessels, and/or blood components. T-TAS is an automated microchip-based flow chamber
system developed for easy and quick assessment of platelet thrombus formation under
physiological flow conditions, to approximate thrombus formation in vivo.[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41] This system analyzes different thrombus formation processes using a simple procedure
comprising two microchips with different thrombogenic surfaces: a platelet (PL) chip
specific for measuring primary hemostatic ability and an atheroma (AR) chip for measuring
fibrin-rich platelet thrombus formation ([Table 1]). The PL chip is coated with type I collagen, and platelets adhere via von Willebrand
factor (vWF) to the surface of the collagen and aggregate inside the microchip, leading
to occlusion of the microchip capillaries. The AR chip is coated with type I collagen
plus tissue thromboplastin, which simultaneously activates platelets and the coagulation
system, respectively, inside the microchip. The process of thrombus formation inside
the chips can be analyzed by monitoring the change in flow pressure. The area under
the flow pressure curve (AUC) was computed to assess the thrombogenicity inside the
microchips. The AUC over 10 minutes is computed for the PL chip and the AUC over 30 minutes
is computed for the AR chip. A version of the T-TAS instrument called T-TAS Plus was
developed for the research setting and has user-selectable flow rates and video capture
capability. PL chip flow rates of 18 and 24 μL/min are defined as PL18-AUC10 and PL24-AUC10, which correspond to shear stresses of 1,500 s−1 and 2,000 s−1, respectively. A previous study showed the significant positive correlation between
PL18-AUC10 and PL24-AUC10 (or simply, PL-AUC) levels in samples from the patients with cardiovascular disease.[42] The AR chip is typically tested at a flow rate of 10 μL/min, defined as AR10-AUC30 (or simply, AR-AUC), which corresponds to a shear rate of 600 s−1. An in vitro diagnostic version of T-TAS has been developed that uses fixed flow
rates of 18 and 10 μL/min for the PL and AR chips, respectively, and does not contain
video capture capabilities.
Table 1
Technical characteristics of T-TAS assay chips
Chip
|
Shear rates
|
Capillary coating
|
Anticoagulants in blood tube
|
Type of thrombi
|
Assay time
|
PL chip
|
Arterial
1,000, 1,500, or 2,000/s
|
Type 1 collagen
(pig tendon)
|
Hirudin or BAPA
|
Platelet thrombi
|
≤10 min
|
AR chip
|
Venous or arterial
240 or 600/s
|
Type 1 collagen
(pig tendon)
Tissue thromboplastin
(rabbit brain)
|
Citrate
|
Fibrin rich platelet thrombi
|
≤30 min
|
Abbreviations: AR, atheroma; BAPA, benzylsulfonyl-D-Arg-Pro-4-amidinobenzylamide;
PL, platelet; T-TAS, Total Thrombus-Formation Analysis System.
Comparison of Methods for Various Platelet Function Assessments and T-TAS
Comparison of Methods for Various Platelet Function Assessments and T-TAS
[Table 2] shows the comparison of various platelet function tests. Several assay systems have
been developed to monitor antiplatelet treatment efficacy and to identify low responsiveness
to therapies in clinical settings.[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32] Examples include the VerifyNow (Accriva Diagnostics, San Diego, California, United
States) and Multiplate (Dynabyte Medical, Munich, Germany) systems, which measure
platelet agglutination and aggregation in response to a soluble exogenous agonist,
which is added for the purpose of rapidly activating all platelets in the blood sample
being measured. These two platelet function tests analyze platelet aggregation and
clot formation under nonflow conditions in response to a single platelet activation
pathway activated by the soluble exogenous agonist. Because the agonists chosen are
dependent on the purpose of the analysis (e.g., collagen or arachidonic acid are chosen
for aspirin, adenosine diphosphate [ADP] ± prostaglandin E1 is chosen for P2Y12 agonists, and ristocetin is chosen for von Willebrand disease), the results of these
assays are agonist-dependent and, therefore, provide information primarily related
to the platelet activation pathway acted on by the exogenous agonist present in the
assay. The PFA-100 test (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics GmBH, Marburg, Germany) also
quantifies platelet aggregate formation on the surface of collagen that is coated
with a specific platelet agonist such as epinephrine or ADP to evaluate the effects
of aspirin or P2Y12 receptor inhibitors under arterial shear conditions; however, the results of this
assay are also agonist-dependent. Although these systems are less labor-intensive
than light transmittance aggregometry and permit the use of whole blood, their results
reflect platelet activity primarily based on the specific pathway activated by the
soluble exogenous agonist, and they are insensitive to the contribution of other mechanisms
for platelet activation. Therefore, while these tests are useful for assessing the
activity or blockade of a particular platelet activation pathway, they are of limited
utility for monitoring overall primary hemostasis. [Fig. 1] highlights the primary differences between the T-TAS PL assay and other available
assays for measuring platelet activity within the scope of overall primary hemostasis.
The PL assay reflects the three major steps in platelet thrombus formation: vWF-mediated
platelet adhesion, the release of endogenous platelet agonists, and platelet activation
and aggregation. While the PL assay is able to assess overall primary hemostasis,
it is not able to specifically evaluate individual platelet activation pathways and
cannot provide information about the reason for impaired primary hemostatic function.
In this regard, the PL assay and agonist-based assays are complimentary and their
combined use can provide a comprehensive analysis of primary hemostasis.
Fig. 1 Primary differences between the Total Thrombus-Formation Analysis System (T-TAS)
platelet (PL) assay and other available assays for measuring platelet activity within
the scope of overall primary hemostasis.
Table 2
Comparison of whole blood methods for platelet function assessment
|
VerifyNow
|
Multiplate
|
PFA-100
|
T-TAS PL chip
|
Assay type
|
Pathway-specific assay
|
Pathway-specific assay
|
Pathway-dependent assay
|
Global assay
|
Blood flow
|
Nonflow condition
|
Nonflow condition
|
Arterial flow condition
|
Arterial flow conditions
|
Platelet activators
|
Soluble exogenous agonist(s)
|
Soluble exogenous agonist(s)
|
Soluble exogenous agonist(s)
Collagen surface
Shear stress
|
Collagen surface
Shear stress
|
Analysis
|
Agglutination
Aggregation
|
Nonspecific adhesion
Aggregation
|
Adhesion
Aggregation
|
Thrombus formation
|
Parameters
|
Pathway-specific reaction units
|
Area under the impedance-time curve
|
Closure time
|
Area under the flow
pressure-time curve
|
Abbreviations: PL, platelet; T-TAS, Total Thrombus-Formation Analysis System.
Further, while plasma-based prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin
time (APTT) are commonly used to titrate warfarin and heparin for monitoring the efficacy
of anticoagulant treatments, PT and APTT do not reflect the interaction between coagulation
factors and platelets in vivo. Rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM [Tem Innovations
GmbH, Munich, Germany]) is frequently used to measure viscoelastic changes due to
fibrin formation and platelet activation during thrombus formation in whole blood.[33] ROTEM is potentially useful for evaluating the antithrombotic effects of low molecular
weight heparin, direct thrombin, or Xa inhibitors,[34] although it is relatively insensitive for platelet function and not suitable for
evaluating efficacy of antiplatelet agents. Additionally, a major limitation of ROTEM
is the lack of blood flow that affects the supply and washout of platelets, coagulation
factors, and inhibitors.
Assessment of Total Thrombogenicity in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Cerebrovascular
Disease Treated with Various Antiplatelet Agents
Assessment of Total Thrombogenicity in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Cerebrovascular
Disease Treated with Various Antiplatelet Agents
Antiplatelet therapy is used for the prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) and
cerebrovascular disease (CVD). Aspirin is used as the mainstay drug for secondary
prevention of ischemic cardiovascular events[43] and its concomitant use with platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitors can reduce the risk of thrombotic events after stent implantation.[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Clopidogrel is a commonly used thienopyridine drug, and requires biotransformation
to an active metabolite by the enzyme cytochrome P-450 2C19 (cytochrome P-450 2C19
[CYP2C19]).[44]
[45]
[46]
[47] In contrast, prasugrel is a third-generation thienopyridine used for the prevention
of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing
PCI.[48]
[49] Compared with clopidogrel, prasugrel has a faster onset of action, greater inhibition
of platelet aggregation at clinical doses, and lower between-patient variability,[45] suggesting that it may be effective in clopidogrel-poor responders and in CYP2C19
genetic variant carriers. Ticagrelor is another potent antiplatelet agent that reversibly
binds to the platelet P2Y12 receptor.[49]
The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy can be assessed by several techniques.[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32] The VerifyNow assay is an easy-to-use point-of-care system in which increased light
transmission is used to reflect agonist-induced platelet aggregation with fibrinogen-coated
latex beads. VerifyNow can be used to assess efficacy and safety of different antiplatelet
drugs by using different cartridges specific for P2Y12, aspirin, or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. Using this system, the platelet response
to aspirin and P2Y12 receptor inhibitors is expressed as aspirin reaction units (ARUs) and P2Y12 reaction units (PRUs), respectively, with the PRU level being influenced by CYP2C19
genotype[50]
[51]
[52]
[53] and correlated with cardiovascular events.[54]
There have been several reports in the analyses of antiplatelet therapies comparing
the PL chip and agonist-dependent platelet function tests. As shown in [Table 3], in a report of Arima et al, samples from patients with cardiovascular disease taking
no antiplatelet medication (controls), treated with aspirin, and treated with DAPT
were comparatively analyzed with VerifyNow PRU and PL chip.[42] The PRU levels were lower in the aspirin/clopidogrel group than the control and
aspirin groups, but there were no significant differences in PRU levels between the
control and aspirin groups. On the other hand, the PL-AUC levels were significantly
lower in the two antiplatelet therapy groups compared with the control group, and
the level was significantly lower in the aspirin/clopidogrel group than the aspirin
group, which were mostly consistent with data from other clinical studies.[55]
[56] In the DAPT group, the PL-AUC level was higher in poor metabolizers (PMs) with CYP2C19
polymorphism than in non-PMs. These findings suggest that the T-TAS PL-AUC level might
be useful to assess the combined, overall therapeutic effects of multiple antiplatelet
therapies, particularly since the values decreased as the potency of antiplatelet
therapy increased.
Table 3
Studies evaluating antithrombotic therapies with T-TAS
Study
|
Population (n)
|
Tests
|
Results
|
Hosokawa et al, 2013[55]
|
72 ACS patients and healthy control
|
T-TAS PL chip
Multiplate
|
PL chip AUC was decreased in aspirin-only patients, and was further decreased in DAPT
patients. Multiplate AUC showed the same values for aspirin and DAPT groups with arachidonic
acid, and showed the same values for controls and aspirin groups with ADP
|
Arima et al, 2016[42]
|
274 patients suspected CAD
|
T-TAS PL chip VerifyNow
|
PL chip AUC was decreased with aspirin alone, and decreased even further by DAPT.
VerifyNow PRU was lower in the DAPT group compared with the control group but not
with the aspirin group
|
Yamazaki et al, 2016[56]
|
94 patients with ischemic stroke
|
T-TAS PL chip VerifyNow
|
PL chip AUC was lower in patients with DAPT compared with aspirin or clopidogrel alone.
Clopidogrel low responders analyzed by PL chip AUC predicted carotid or intracranial
arterial stenosis
VerifyNow PRU in patients with DAPT and clopidogrel alone showed similar values and
were lower compared than aspirin alone. VerifyNow ARU in patients with DAPT and aspirin
alone showed similar values and were lower than clopidogrel alone
|
Oimatsu et al, 2017[66]
|
313 CAD patients with PCI
|
T-TAS PL chip VerifyNow
|
AR chip AUC but not VerifyNow PRU was lower in patients that experienced periprocedural
bleeding during PCI
|
Borst et al, 2018[67]
|
40 NSTEMI patients with PCI
|
T-TAS AR chip
TG
|
AR chip AUC and TG reflected the effect of triple antithrombotic therapy with DAPT
and very low-dose rivaroxaban post-PCI
|
Ito et al, 2016[73]
|
128 AF patients with CA
|
T-TAS AR chip
PT/APTT
|
AR chip AUC but not PT and APTT was lower in AF patients with periprocedural bleeding
after CA
|
Sueta et al, 2018[77]
|
38 patients with TKA
|
T-TAS AR chip
PT/APTT
|
AR chip AUC and PT/APTT were lower in the combination therapy group 7 d after than
before TKA
|
Abbreviations: ACS, acute coronary syndrome; ADP, adenosine diphosphate; AF, atrial
fibrillation; APTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; AR, atheroma; ARU, aspirin
reaction unit; AUC, area under the curve; CA, catheter ablation; CAD, coronary artery
disease; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; NSTEMI, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction;
PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; PL, platelet; PRU, P2Y12 reaction unit; PT, prothrombin time; T-TAS, Total Thrombus-Formation Analysis System;
TG, thrombin generation; TKA, total knee arthroplasty.
Periprocedural bleeding events are one of the most common complications after PCI,
and patients with periprocedural bleeding have an increased risk of readmission for
treatment of recurrent bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause
mortality compared to those without periprocedural bleeding.[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61] While the development of various bleeding avoidance strategies, such as the radial
approach, vascular closure devices, and bivalirudin, has reduced the incidence of
periprocedural bleeding after PCI, the rate has remained relatively high in several
studies.[62]
[63]
[64] The incidence rate of major PCI-related periprocedural bleeding in Japanese patients
with acute coronary syndrome is 4.8% for the femoral approach and 1.1% for the radial
approach, and that of elective PCI for CAD is 2.2% for the femoral approach and 0.2%
for the radial approach.[65] However, it was unclear from previous studies how the combined antithrombotic effects
by different types of drugs were associated with periprocedural bleeding events in
CAD patients undergoing PCI. Oimatsu et al reported that PL-AUC levels were significantly
lower in patients with than in those without such events, and that there was a significant
association between low PL-AUC levels and periprocedural bleeding events as defined
by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.[66]
Yamazaki et al performed analysis of CVD patient samples on aspirin alone, clopidogrel
alone, and DAPT with PL chip and VerifyNow system. The AUC for PL chip was lower for
those in the DAPT group than those in the aspirin or clopidogrel alone group. In contrast,
VerifyNow ARU in the aspirin and DAPT groups was the same, and VerifyNow PRU showed
the same values in clopidogrel and DAPT patients, indicating that the results overall
were very characteristic of an agonist (cartridge)-dependent assay.[56] In this way, analysis of platelet thrombus formation with PL chip can comparatively
evaluate the single and combined efficacies of aspirin and clopidogrel on platelet
thrombus formation while VerifyNow system can only be used to analyze the separate
effects of aspirin and clopidogrel.
In T-TAS PL chip analysis, poor responders to aspirin monotherapy had increased multiple
platelet aggregates as analyzed by fluorescence-activated cell sorting.[55] In addition, poor responders to clopidogrel monotherapy had increased rates of carotid
or intracranial arterial stenosis.[56] PL chip AUC was a good predictor of patients with PM CYP2C19 reduced function genotypes
in DAPT patients, and combined use of PRU further enhanced the discrimination.[42] By using both a global assay such as the PL chip and one of the conventional agonist-dependent
assays together, the information about both the inhibition of receptors and enzymes
by individual drugs, and the effect on overall platelet thrombus formation, can be
obtained, which could be useful from the viewpoint of selecting and tailoring appropriate
antiplatelet therapy for individual patients.
Borst et al showed that fibrin-rich platelet thrombus formation in AR chip was significantly
inhibited by triple antiplatelet therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel, and very low-dose
rivaroxaban in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction post-PCI.[67] Conventionally, the antiplatelet function of aspirin and clopidogrel (reactivity
to agonist) and the anticoagulant ability of rivaroxaban have been measured separately.
However, all of these drugs are used for the same purpose: to inhibit thrombosis.
Many clinical trials have confirmed that combined use of these drugs will decrease
vascular events, but will increase bleeding risk. Quantitatively evaluating the comprehensive
antithrombotic potential of these drugs may be useful information for determining
an antithrombotic therapy that is appropriate for individual patients.
Assessment of Total Thrombogenicity and Periprocedural Bleeding Events in Patients
undergoing Catheter Ablation for AF Treated with Anticoagulants
Assessment of Total Thrombogenicity and Periprocedural Bleeding Events in Patients
undergoing Catheter Ablation for AF Treated with Anticoagulants
Anticoagulants are useful agents for preventing cerebrovascular events in patients
with AF. A previous study reported that warfarin reduced the risk of stroke by 64%
compared with placebo.[68] DOACs have been clinically used in recent years for the prevention of cerebrovascular
events in patients with nonvalvular AF. Importantly, accumulating clinical and experimental
evidence indicates that DOACs, such as dabigatran,[16] apixaban,[17] rivaroxaban,[18] and edoxaban,[19] in addition to warfarin, can reduce the likelihood of cerebrovascular events in
nonvalvular AF patients. A recent network meta-analysis demonstrated that DOACs appear
to be at least equivalent to warfarin at preventing stroke in AF patients and to carry
a reduced risk of bleeding.[69]
DOACs are innovative drugs that have resolved complex patient management issues associated
with the administration of warfarin alone, such as frequent blood sampling, diet restriction,
and drug interactions. However, there is no definitive tool for monitoring the anticoagulant
effects of DOACs, even though some patients suffer bleeding complications due to excessively
high blood concentrations of DOACs.[70]
[71] Routine coagulation test parameters, such as the PT-international normalized ratio
or APTT may be problematic for monitoring the anticoagulant effects of DOACs because
individual DOACs have different characteristic chemical structures and different pharmacokinetic
profiles (e.g., plasma half-life and tissue penetration rate).[72] In the study of Ito et al, blood samples of AF patients undergoing catheter ablation
(CA) were evaluated with AR chip.[73] Blood samples obtained on the day of CA (anticoagulant-free point), and 3 days and
1 month after CA were evaluated using T-TAS to measure AR-AUC levels in two groups:
those treated with warfarin and those treated with DOACs. The findings were: (1) AR-AUC
levels were similar in the two groups on the day of CA; (2) AR-AUC levels were significantly
lower in the two groups at 3 days and 1 month after CA than on the day of CA; and
(3) AR-AUC level on the day of CA and 3 days after CA was a significant predictor
of periprocedural bleeding events by receiver-operating characteristic analysis. In
this study, few AF patients developed thrombotic events after CA, possibly because
of the continuous anticoagulant therapies after CA. While T-TAS is almost certainly
expected to have clinical value, large-scale clinical studies are needed to confirm
the usefulness of this device for monitoring thrombotic and bleeding events after
CA.
Prophylaxis of VTE by Edoxaban after Total Knee Arthroplasty
Prophylaxis of VTE by Edoxaban after Total Knee Arthroplasty
In orthopedic surgery, VTE often occurs during the perioperative period of total hip
arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and hip fracture surgery. Many cases
are fatal once pulmonary thromboembolism occurs. Western[74] and Japanese[75] guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of VTE recommend physiotherapy
or anticoagulation therapy for preventing VTE in high-risk patients, including after
TKA. In a recent clinical study,[76]
[77] 38 patients were randomly assigned to the physiotherapy group (N = 19) or the physiotherapy plus 30 mg/day of edoxaban group (N = 19). As a result, the combination therapy significantly reduced the incidence of
VTE after TKA compared to monotherapy, with the significant decrease of AR-AUC levels
in the combination therapy group 7 days after TKA than before TKA.
Limitations
T-TAS is suitable to measure platelet function or coagulation as a global assay but
not able to specially evaluate the activity of a pathway that may be targeted by an
antithrombotic agent. For example, using T-TAS, it is possible to identify that overall
primary hemostatic function has been impaired, but it is difficult to determine which
drug is responsible for low PL-AUC levels in patients treated with DAPT, aspirin,
or a P2Y12 receptor blocker. The soluble agonist-based VerifyNow and Multiplate systems are
specific for certain platelet activation pathways but are not suitable to monitor
global platelet function or overall primary hemostatic function in patients treated
with DAPT. The combined use of the T-TAS and VerifyNow (or Multiplate) systems might
be beneficial to determine both the specific antiplatelet drug effects on their targeted
platelet activation pathways, and also their combined effect on overall primary hemostatic
function in patients treated with DAPT.
An additional limitation is that a PL-AUC or AR-AUC threshold associated with thrombotic
risk has not yet been conclusively identified. The recent published clinical studies
were performed at a single center on a relatively small number of patients and may
therefore be underpowered for the accurate detection of differences in thrombotic
event rates. Therefore, additional studies in larger populations are needed to further
examine the relationship between PL-AUC or AR-AUC level measured by T-TAS and an increased
risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events, as well as to further evaluate the association
between T-TAS results and bleeding events.
Conclusion and Future Perspectives
Conclusion and Future Perspectives
As summarized in this review, recent clinical studies suggest that T-TAS is suitable
for assessing the effects of different antiplatelet therapies such as aspirin and
thienopyridines, and anticoagulant therapies such as warfarin and DOACs (dabigatran,
rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban). Further, PL chip and AR chip AUCs measured by
the T-TAS might be useful for predicting periprocedural bleeding events after various
types of cardiovascular interventions.
As shown in [Fig. 2], various antithrombotic strategies such as antiplatelet therapies (aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors) for CAD and anticoagulant therapies (DOACs, warfarin, and heparin) for
AF or VTE are clinically used to inhibit the cascade of arterial or venous thrombosis
in cardiovascular diseases. However, a combination of antiplatelet and anticoagulant
therapies must be selected for patients with CAD complicated with AF and/or VTE. Several
diagnostic devices for monitoring antiplatelet treatments, such as VerifyNow, Multiplate,
and PFA-100, and devices and parameters for monitoring anticoagulant treatments, such
as PT, APTT, and ROTEM, are limited when measuring whole blood thrombogenicity in
patients receiving combination antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies. T-TAS parameters
(PL-AUC and AR-AUC) might be more effective for evaluating the total antithrombotic
effects of combination antithrombotic agents in patients with various cardiovascular
diseases.
Fig. 2 Overview of the current methods for evaluating antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies,
including Total Thrombus-Formation Analysis System (T-TAS), in various cardiovascular
diseases. AF, atrial fibrillation; APTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; CAD,
coronary artery disease; DOACs, direct oral anticoagulants; PT, prothrombin time;
VTE: venous thromboembolism.
Recent randomized clinical trials such as PIONEER AF-PCI[78] or RE-DUAL PCI[79] have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of combined antiplatelet therapy and a
DOAC (rivaroxaban and dabigatran, respectively) in nonvalvular AF patients who have
undergone PCI. In the PIONEER AF-PCI trial, administration of either low-dose rivaroxaban
plus a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for 12 months or very low-dose rivaroxaban plus DAPT for 1, 6,
or 12 months was associated with a lower rate of clinically significant bleeding than
standard therapy with a vitamin K antagonist plus DAPT for 1, 6, or 12 months. In
the RE-DUAL PCI trial, the risk of bleeding was lower among CAD patients with AF who
had undergone PCI and received dual therapy with dabigatran and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor than among those who received triple therapy comprising warfarin,
a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, and aspirin. However, these studies lacked a monitoring system
to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of antiplatelet and anticoagulation
therapies. T-TAS may be a useful system for evaluating the potential efficacy and
safety of antithrombotic therapies in various cardiovascular diseases.