Predicting ischaemic events using platelet reactivity in patients receiving clopidogrel: Indirect meta-comparison among VerifyNow, light transmission aggregometry and thromboelastography

Abstract

The present study compared performances of the three major methods used for assessing platelet reactivity (PR)-VerifyNow, light transmission aggregometry (LTA) and thromboelastography (TEG)-to predict ischaemic events in patients receiving clopidogrel. PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to April 2019 for prospective studies that examined PR using VerifyNow, LTA or TEG and the incidence of ischaemic events. The investigated diagnostic indices include sensitivity, specificity, positive (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) of VerifyNow, LTA and TEG, respectively. A total of 26 prospective studies involving 22 185 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled AUC was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.67-0.75) for VerifyNow, 0.60 (95% CI: 0.55-0.64) for LTA and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84) for TEG. Results of indirect comparisons indicated the AUC of VerifyNow was higher than that of LTA (1.18, 95% CI: 1.08-1.30) and lower than that of TEG (0.88, 95% CI: 0.82-0.94). TEG outperformed the other two methods for assessing PR in all predictive measures, including sensitivity, specificity, PLR and NLR. Despite a lack of studies that directly compared the three methods, our findings suggest that TEG should be recommended.

Keywords: VerifyNow; light-transmission aggregometry; platelet reactivity; thromboelastography.