Prognostic Effects of Platelet Reactivity in Patients with Carotid Artery Stenting or Carotid Artery Endarterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.7
Muyi Yin, Zhiyan Guo, Yijia Guo, Hai Dong, Zhongchun He, Lei Liu, Yong Liu
{"title":"Prognostic Effects of Platelet Reactivity in Patients with Carotid Artery Stenting or Carotid Artery Endarterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Muyi Yin, Zhiyan Guo, Yijia Guo, Hai Dong, Zhongchun He, Lei Liu, Yong Liu","doi":"10.2174/0115672026395463250822065302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>High On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity (HTPR) is frequently observed after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or stenting (CAS), but its association with adverse events remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the association between HTPR and recurrent vascular events in these patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies from inception to July 1, 2024. Two independent reviewers screened the records, extracted data, and assessed the bias using predefined criteria. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcome was the risk of recurrent ischemic events in patients with HTPR. Secondary outcomes included the risk of hemorrhage and carotid restenosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies involving 1,052 patients were included in the meta-analysis. This metaanalysis found that HTPR significantly increased the risk of adverse vascular events (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.37-4.24), particularly in CAS patients (OR = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.14-2.98), but not in CEA patients (OR = 4.53, 95% CI: 0.52-39.12). Furthermore, HTPR was not significantly associated with an increased risk of bleeding (OR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.24-3.37) or carotid restenosis (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 0.38-7.55).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This meta-analysis demonstrates that HTPR may increase the risk of recurrent ischemic events in CAS patients, supporting the clinical utility of platelet function monitoring in this population. However, no significant association was observed between HTPR and hemorrhage or restenosis. These findings should be interpreted cautiously due to study limitations, including small sample sizes and heterogeneity in platelet function assessment methodologies. Large-scale prospective studies with standardized protocols are warranted to validate these observations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>HTPR may be associated with an increased risk of recurrent ischemic events in patients undergoing CAS, highlighting the potential value of platelet function monitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":93965,"journal":{"name":"Current neurovascular research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current neurovascular research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0115672026395463250822065302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: High On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity (HTPR) is frequently observed after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or stenting (CAS), but its association with adverse events remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the association between HTPR and recurrent vascular events in these patients.

Methods: EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies from inception to July 1, 2024. Two independent reviewers screened the records, extracted data, and assessed the bias using predefined criteria. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcome was the risk of recurrent ischemic events in patients with HTPR. Secondary outcomes included the risk of hemorrhage and carotid restenosis.

Results: Eight studies involving 1,052 patients were included in the meta-analysis. This metaanalysis found that HTPR significantly increased the risk of adverse vascular events (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.37-4.24), particularly in CAS patients (OR = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.14-2.98), but not in CEA patients (OR = 4.53, 95% CI: 0.52-39.12). Furthermore, HTPR was not significantly associated with an increased risk of bleeding (OR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.24-3.37) or carotid restenosis (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 0.38-7.55).

Discussion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that HTPR may increase the risk of recurrent ischemic events in CAS patients, supporting the clinical utility of platelet function monitoring in this population. However, no significant association was observed between HTPR and hemorrhage or restenosis. These findings should be interpreted cautiously due to study limitations, including small sample sizes and heterogeneity in platelet function assessment methodologies. Large-scale prospective studies with standardized protocols are warranted to validate these observations.

Conclusion: HTPR may be associated with an increased risk of recurrent ischemic events in patients undergoing CAS, highlighting the potential value of platelet function monitoring.

血小板反应性对颈动脉支架置入术或颈动脉内膜切除术患者预后的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
在颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)或支架置入术(CAS)后,经常观察到高治疗期血小板反应性(HTPR),但其与不良事件的关系尚不确定。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了这些患者HTPR与复发性血管事件之间的关系。方法:检索EMBASE、PubMed和Cochrane图书馆从成立到2024年7月1日的符合条件的研究。两名独立审稿人筛选记录,提取数据,并使用预定义的标准评估偏倚。采用RevMan 5.4软件进行meta分析。主要终点是HTPR患者复发性缺血性事件的风险。次要结局包括出血和颈动脉再狭窄的风险。结果:meta分析纳入了8项研究,涉及1,052例患者。该荟萃分析发现,HTPR显著增加了血管不良事件的风险(OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.37-4.24),特别是在CAS患者中(OR = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.14-2.98),但在CEA患者中没有(OR = 4.53, 95% CI: 0.52-39.12)。此外,HTPR与出血(OR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.24-3.37)或颈动脉再狭窄(OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 0.38-7.55)的风险增加没有显著相关。讨论:这项荟萃分析表明,HTPR可能会增加CAS患者复发性缺血性事件的风险,支持血小板功能监测在该人群中的临床应用。然而,HTPR与出血或再狭窄之间没有明显的关联。由于研究的局限性,包括样本量小和血小板功能评估方法的异质性,这些发现应谨慎解释。采用标准化方案的大规模前瞻性研究有必要验证这些观察结果。结论:HTPR可能与CAS患者复发性缺血事件的风险增加有关,突出了血小板功能监测的潜在价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信