Vol 24, No 3 (2017)
Original articles — Clinical cardiology
Published online: 2017-03-09

open access

Page views 2195
Article views/downloads 1706
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Optimal aNtiplatelet pharmacotherapy guided by bedSIDE genetic or functional TESTing in elective PCI patients: A pilot study: ONSIDE TEST pilot

Lukasz Koltowski1, Mariusz Tomaniak, Daniel Aradi, Zenon Huczek, Krzysztof J. Filipiak, Janusz Kochman, Pawel Balsam, Sylwia Gajda, Grzegorz Opolski
Pubmed: 28281736
Cardiol J 2017;24(3):284-292.


Background: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is recommended after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) patients; however, still one-third of patients do not obtain adequate platelet inhibition that may result in increased cardiovascular risk. The aim of the ONSIDE TEST study is to evaluate the clinical impact of point-of-care genotyping- and platelet function-based personalized dual antiplatelet strategies in SCAD individuals undergoing PCI.

Methods: Fifty patients were randomized to one of the three study arms: 1) genotyping, 2) platelet function testing (PFT) and 3) control. Patients were tested with point-of-care Spartan RX CYP2C19 System (group 1) and VerifyNow P2Y12 assay (group 2). In cases of inadequate response to clopidogrel, a loading dose of prasugrel was administered before PCI. The main clinical endpoint is the incidence of periprocedural myocardial injury (PMI).

Results: Five (32%) patients in the genotyping arm and two (13%) in the in the PFT arm were identi-fied as poor clopidogrel metabolizers. The periprocedural platelet reactivity was significantly lower in the genotyping (80 ± 49.0 PRU) and PFT (36.5 ± 47 PRU) arms as compared to the control arm (176 ± 67.8 PRU), p = 0.01 and p = 0.03, respectively. PMI appeared in 17 (37%) patients of the entire study population.

Conclusions: Personalized DAPT results in an improved platelet inhibition. Apart from genotyping and aggregometry, it is feasible to integrate into everyday clinical practice PMI rates which are relevant when comparing different strategies

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Kalesan B, et al. FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(11): 991–1001.
  2. Weintraub WS, Spertus JA, Kolm P, et al. COURAGE Trial Research Group. Effect of PCI on quality of life in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359(7): 677–687.
  3. Pawęska J, Macioch T, Perkowski P, et al. Direct healthcare costs and cost-effectiveness of acute coronary syndrome secondary prevention with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel: economic evaluation from the public payer's perspective in Poland based on the PLATO trial results. Kardiol Pol. 2014; 72(9): 823–830.
  4. Patti G, Colonna G, Pasceri V, et al. Randomized trial of high loading dose of clopidogrel for reduction of periprocedural myocardial infarction in patients undergoing coronary intervention: results from the ARMYDA-2 (Antiplatelet therapy for Reduction of MYocardial Damage during Angioplasty) study. Circulation. 2005; 111(16): 2099–2106.
  5. Ellis SG, Chew D, Chan A, et al. Death following creatine kinase-MB elevation after coronary intervention: identification of an early risk period: importance of creatine kinase-MB level, completeness of revascularization, ventricular function, and probable benefit of statin therapy. Circulation. 2002; 106(10): 1205–1210.
  6. Michalak M, Huczek Z, Filipiak KJ, et al. Periprocedural myocardial damage during percutaneous coronary intervention: a point-of-care platelet testing and intravascular ultrasound/virtual histology study. Kardiol Pol. 2013; 71(4): 325–333.
  7. Bliden KP, DiChiara J, Tantry US, et al. Increased risk in patients with high platelet aggregation receiving chronic clopidogrel therapy undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: is the current antiplatelet therapy adequate? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49(6): 657–666.
  8. Aradi D, Komócsi A, Vorobcsuk A, et al. Prognostic significance of high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity after percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2010; 160(3): 543–551.
  9. Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Weisz G, et al. ADAPT-DES Investigators. Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES): a prospective multicentre registry study. Lancet. 2013; 382(9892): 614–623.
  10. Price MJ, Angiolillo DJ, Teirstein PS, et al. Platelet reactivity and cardiovascular outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: a time-dependent analysis of the Gauging Responsiveness with a VerifyNow P2Y12 assay: Impact on Thrombosis and Safety (GRAVITAS) trial. Circulation. 2011; 124(10): 1132–1137.
  11. Mega JL, Simon T, Collet JP, et al. Reduced-function CYP2C19 genotype and risk of adverse clinical outcomes among patients treated with clopidogrel predominantly for PCI: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2010; 304(16): 1821–1830.
  12. Trenk D, Stone GW, Gawaz M, et al. A randomized trial of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with high platelet reactivity on clopidogrel after elective percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of drug-eluting stents: results of the TRIGGER-PCI (Testing Platelet Reactivity In Patients Undergoing Elective Stent Placement on Clopidogrel to Guide Alternative Therapy With Prasugrel) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59(24): 2159–2164.
  13. Wallentin L, James S, Storey RF, et al. PLATO investigators. Effect of CYP2C19 and ABCB1 single nucleotide polymorphisms on outcomes of treatment with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes: a genetic substudy of the PLATO trial. Lancet. 2010; 376(9749): 1320–1328.
  14. Kołtowski Ł, Aradi D, Huczek Z, et al. Study design and rationale for Optimal aNtiplatelet pharmacotherapy guided by bedSIDE genetic or functional TESTing in elective percutaneous coronary intervention patients (ONSIDE TEST): a prospective, open-label, randomised parallel-group multicentre trial (NCT01930773). Kardiol Pol. 2016; 74(4): 372–379.
  15. Steg PG, Huber K, Andreotti F, et al. Bleeding in acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary interventions: position paper by the Working Group on Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2011; 32(15): 1854–1864.
  16. MEDSHARING. Randomizer for Clinical Trial. https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/randomizer-for-clinical-trial/id578254014?mt = 8..
  17. Eshtehardi P, Windecker S, Cook S, et al. Dual low response to acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel is associated with myonecrosis and stent thrombosis after coronary stent implantation. Am Heart J. 2010; 159(5): 891–898.e1.
  18. Sibbing D, Braun S, Morath T, et al. Platelet reactivity after clopidogrel treatment assessed with point-of-care analysis and early drug-eluting stent thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53(10): 849–856.
  19. Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Weisz G, et al. ADAPT-DES Investigators. Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES): a prospective multicentre registry study. Lancet. 2013; 382(9892): 614–623.
  20. Breet NJ, van Werkum JW, Bouman HJ, et al. Comparison of platelet function tests in predicting clinical outcome in patients undergoing coronary stent implantation. JAMA. 2010; 303(8): 754–762.
  21. Cuisset T, Frere C, Quilici J, et al. Predictive values of post-treatment adenosine diphosphate-induced aggregation and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein index for stent thrombosis after acute coronary syndrome in clopidogrel-treated patients. Am J Cardiol. 2009; 104(8): 1078–1082.
  22. Parodi G, Marcucci R, Valenti R, et al. High residual platelet reactivity after clopidogrel loading and long-term cardiovascular events among patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing PCI. JAMA. 2011; 306(11): 1215–1223.
  23. Geisler T, Langer H, Wydymus M, et al. Low response to clopidogrel is associated with cardiovascular outcome after coronary stent implantation. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27(20): 2420–2425.
  24. Angiolillo DJ, Bernardo E, Zanoni M, et al. Impact of platelet reactivity on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50(16): 1541–1547.
  25. Gurbel PA, Antonino MJ, Bliden KP, et al. Platelet reactivity to adenosine diphosphate and long-term ischemic event occurrence following percutaneous coronary intervention: a potential antiplatelet therapeutic target. Platelets. 2008; 19(8): 595–604.
  26. Rideg O, Komócsi A, Magyarlaki T, et al. Impact of genetic variants on post-clopidogrel platelet reactivity in patients after elective percutaneous coronary intervention. Pharmacogenomics. 2011; 12(9): 1269–1280.
  27. Hulot JS, Collet JP, Silvain J, et al. Cardiovascular risk in clopidogrel-treated patients according to cytochrome P450 2C19*2 loss-of-function allele or proton pump inhibitor coadministration: a systematic meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 56(2): 134–143.
  28. Shuldiner AR, O'Connell JR, Bliden KP, et al. Association of cytochrome P450 2C19 genotype with the antiplatelet effect and clinical efficacy of clopidogrel therapy. JAMA. 2009; 302(8): 849–857.
  29. Mehta SR, Tanguay JF, Eikelboom JW, et al. CURRENT-OASIS 7 trial investigators. Double-dose versus standard-dose clopidogrel and high-dose versus low-dose aspirin in individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes (CURRENT-OASIS 7): a randomised factorial trial. Lancet. 2010; 376(9748): 1233–1243.
  30. Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, et al. PLATO Investigators. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361(11): 1045–1057.
  31. Cannon CP, Harrington RA, James S, et al. PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes Investigators. Comparison of ticagrelor with clopidogrel in patients with a planned invasive strategy for acute coronary syndromes (PLATO): a randomised double-blind study. Lancet. 2010; 375(9711): 283–293.
  32. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(20): 2001–2015.
  33. Rinaldi M, Kirtane A, Xu Ke, et al. Impact of point-of-care platelet function testing among patients with and without acute coronary syndromes undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents: an adaptdes substudy. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013; 61(10): E1857.
  34. Collet JP, Cayla G, Cuisset T, et al. Randomized comparison of platelet function monitoring to adjust antiplatelet therapy versus standard of care: rationale and design of the assessment with a double randomization of (1) a fixed dose versus a monitoring-guided dose of aspirin and clopidogrel after DES implantation, and (2) treatment interruption versus continuation, 1 year after stenting (ARCTIC) study. Am Heart J. 2011; 161(1): 5–12.e5.
  35. Kong TQ, Davidson CJ, Meyers SN, et al. Prognostic implication of creatine kinase elevation following elective coronary artery interventions. JAMA. 1997; 277(6): 461–466.
  36. Ioannidis JPA, Karvouni E, Katritsis DG. Mortality risk conferred by small elevations of creatine kinase-MB isoenzyme after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 42(8): 1406–1411.
  37. Ghazzal Z, Ashfaq S, Morris DC, et al. Prognostic implication of creatine kinase release after elective percutaneous coronary intervention in the pre-IIb/IIIa antagonist era. Am Heart J. 2003; 145(6): 1006–1012.
  38. Lansky AJ, Stone GW. Periprocedural myocardial infarction: prevalence, prognosis, and prevention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 3(6): 602–610.
  39. Zimarino M, Affinito V. The prognosis of periprocedural myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary interventions. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2013; 14(1): 32–36.