Background: Analysis of responsiveness to P2Y12 therapy is vital to preventing thrombotic complications as well as hemorrhagic complications in the management of patients with cardiovascular diseases.

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate a new Anysis-P2Y12 assay system comparing with VerifyNow-P2Y12 in cardiology patients and to analyze P2Y12 low-response rates between two devices with various cutoff values.

Methods: Overall, 125 citrated blood samples were collected from cardiology patients referred for antiplatelet response test. In Anysis assay, a test result was a blood migration distance (MD) until clogging of flow passage, which is comparable to both P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) and percent inhibition (%INH) obtained using VerifyNow. The two devices were simultaneously used and compared.

Results: The MDs for without and with taking P2Y12 were 182±30 and 264±12 mm, respectively (p<0.0001). Compared with VerifyNow (reference), the sensitivity and specificity of Anysis-200 was 96.8% and 88.7%, respectively. The Cohen’s kappa coefficient between the two devices was 0.761, indicating a relatively high agreement. However, there was an apparent difference in the rates of low-response rates to P2Y12, which were 36.5% for VerifyNow and 5.9% for Anysis, respectively. The different results might be caused by the difference in concentrations of ADP (20 uM vs. 2 uM) as an agonist used in their assays.

Conclusions: The present study confirmed that the microfluidic platelet function assay, Anysis-P2Y12 has accuracy and precision equivalent to that of, and significant agreement with, VerifyNow. The low-response rate of P2Y12 should be re-evaluated with assaying devices which adopt relatively low concentration of ADP as an agonist.

« Back to ISTH 2021 Congress

ISTH Congress Abstracts - https://abstracts.isth.org/abstract/assessment-of-low-response-rates-to-p2y12-inhibition-in-cardiology-patients-comparison-of-the-verifynow-p2y12-and-anysis-p2y12-assay/