Abstract
Objective
The aim is to evaluate the association between baseline platelet count (PC) and severe adverse outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in current real-world practice.
Methods
A total of 18,788 patients underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents constituted the study population. Patients were categorized as having low (< 150 × 1000/µL), normal (150–300 × 1000/µL), and high (≥ 300 × 1000/µL) baseline PC. The primary endpoints included in-hospital and follow-up all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoint was major bleeding requiring a blood transfusion.
Results
In-hospital mortality rates for patients with low, normal, and high baseline PC were 0.6%, 0.4%, and 0.4%, respectively (P = 0.259). Similarly, mortality rates during long-term follow-up (median 23.8 months) for patients with low, normal, and high baseline PC were 0.9%, 0.6%, and 0.7%, respectively (P = 0.079). After multivariate adjustment, patients with low or high baseline PC tended to have similar risks for both in-hospital and follow-up mortality compared with the normal group. Subgroup analyses failed to demonstrate an independent prognostic value of baseline PC in specific population groups except patients who undwent transfemoral PCI. There was also no significant difference in the incidence of major bleeding requiring a blood transfusion in the low, normal, and high groups (0.5%, 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively; P = 0.320). After multivariate adjustment, low or high baseline PC did not significantly increase the risk of major bleeding.
Conclusion
There is no significant association between baseline PC and severe adverse outcomes following PCI in current real-world practice.
Keywords: Major bleeding, Mortality, Percutaneous coronary intervention, Platelet count
1. Introduction
Thrombosis and hemorrhage represent the main challenges of myocardial revascularization.[1],[2] Platelets play a key role in the pathophysiological process of both thrombosis and hemorrhage.[3],[4] An abnormal increase (thrombocytosis) or decrease (thrombocytopenia) in platelets may cause defective formation of hemostatic plugs and bleeding.[5],[6] Accordingly, such patients were excluded from the vast majority of clinical trials, given the potentially increased risks. Few pooled post-hoc analyses[7]–[15] and cohort studies[13]–[15] drew inconsistent conclusions based on data mostly from thrombolysis or bare metal stents (BMS) era. Furthermore, contemporary treatment regimens have changed a lot over the last decade with common use of drug eluting stents (DES) and advances in adjunctive pharmacotherapy, but latest evidence is rare. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between baseline platelet count (PC) and severe adverse outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in current real-world practice both at short-term and long-term follow-up by analyzing data from the Beijing Heart and Metabolism Survey (BHMS).
2. Methods
2.1. Study design and patient population
BHMS is an investigator-initiated, multicenter cohort study conducted at five tertiary medical centers. The PC obtained at baseline, using a Coulter Counter method, was considered. From April 2004 to October 2010, a total of 21,620 consecutive patients receiving PCI were recruited. And only those implanted with DES were considered eligible for the study. To enhance homogeneity and ensure examination of a representative cohort in the context of contemporary treatment regimens, 843 (3.9%) patients receiving plain old balloon angioplasty without stent implantation and 1738 (8.0%) patients who underwent BMS implantation were excluded. Two hundred and eleven (1.0%) patients without completed baseline data and 40 (0.2%) with a terminal illness were also excluded. Thus a total of 18,788 patients constituted the cohort. Patients in our cohort were categorized as having low (< 150 × 1000/µL), normal (150–300 × 1000/µL), and high (≥ 300 × 1000/µL) baseline PC. In the overall cohort, the average length of in-hospital stay was 8 ± 6 days and the mean length of follow-up was about 2 years (25 ± 17 months). Figure 1 shows the study design and flow chart. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of each participating institution.
Figure 1. The study flow chart.
PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; PC: platelet count; AHA/ACC: American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology; DES: drug eluting stent; BMS: bare metal stent.
2.2. Clinical endpoints
The primary endpoints were in-hospital and follow-up all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoint was major bleeding requiring a blood transfusion. The tertiary endpoints included length of stay before PCI, length of stay after PCI, length of in-hospital stay, and the total hospitalization expenses.
2.3. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). All categorical variables were expressed as percentages and compared with Pearson chi-square test or Fisher exact test; continuous variables were expressed as median (interquartile range) and nonparametric tests were used (Kruskal-Wallis test for > 2 groups). Multivariate analyses with Cox proportional hazards methods derived the independent predictors of adverse events. Variables were selected for submission to the model if the univariate P value was < 0.25 or the variable was of known clinical significance but failed to meet the critical α level for inclusion.[7]–[15]
3. Results
3.1. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics
As an overall cohort, the mean ± SD age was 60 ± 11 years with the median age of 60 (52–68) years. Male patients (n = 13,922) account for 74.1% of the cohort. There were 5384 (28.7%), 11,425 (60.8%), 2832 (15.1%), and 2915 (15.5%) patients had a history of diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension, hyperlipidemia and prior myocardial infaction (MI), respectively. A total of 13,283 patients had the myocardial dysfunction with different New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes, among which class II, III and IV accounted for 54.6%, 12.8% and 3.4%, respectively. The prevalences of stable coronary artery disease (SCAD), unstable angina pectoris (UAP) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were 23.2%, 48.5% and 28.3%, respectively.
3.2. Distribution of baseline PC
The distribution of baseline PC was a skewed distribution with a median value of 2 × 1000/µL (165–240 × 1000/µL) and a mean value of (206 ± 60) × 1000/µL (Figure 2A). A majority of the baseline PC (14,633, 77.9%) were normally distributing in the range of 150–300 × 1000/µL (figure 2B). In addition, there were 2884 (15.4%), 1271 (6.8%) patients had their baseline PC < 150 × 1000/µL, and ≥ 300 × 1000/µL, respectively. Only 11 patients had their baseline PC lower than 50 × 1000/µL with the minimum value of 13 × 1000/µL (Figure 2C). And 4 patients in the high group had their baseline PC higher than 600 × 1000/µL with the maximum value of 664 × 1000/µL (Figure 2D).
Figure 2. The distribution of baseline platelet count.
(A): The distribution of baseline platelet count in the overall cohort; (B): the distribution of baseline platelet count in the normal group; (C): the distribution of baseline platelet count in the low group; (D): the distribution of baseline platelet count in the high group.
3.3. Comparison of baseline characteristics among groups
As detailed in Table 1, among the 3 groups there were major differences in baseline clinical characteristics, which in the low group were almost the opposite of the high group. From an angiographic and procedural viewpoint (Table 2), patients with lower baseline PC were more likely to have left main (LM) disease and left main multi-vessel disease (LMMVD). They were treated somewhat more frequently with single stent with shorter length and larger diameter. In addition, transradial approach PCI was more likely preferred in the low group. Compared with the normal group, patients in the high group were also more likely to have LM disease and were treated more frequently with single stent with relatively shorter length and larger diameter.
Table 1. Baseline clinical characteristics.
| Characteristics | Low (n = 2884) | Normal (n = 14633) | High (n = 1271) | P value |
| Clinical variables | ||||
| Age, yrs | 64 (55, 71) | 59 (52, 68) | 57 (49, 66) | < 0.001 |
| Age ≥ 75, yrs | 351 (12.2%) | 1115 (7.6%) | 75 (5.9%) | < 0.001 |
| Female | 519 (18.0%) | 3906 (26.7%) | 441 (34.7%) | < 0.001 |
| Diabetes | 901 (31.2%) | 4146 (28.3%) | 337 (26.5%) | 0.001 |
| Hypertension | 1682 (58.3%) | 8974 (61.3%) | 769 (60.5%) | 0.010 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 344 (11.9%) | 2284 (15.6%) | 204 (16.1%) | < 0.001 |
| Prior myocardial infarction | 374 (13.0%) | 2328 (15.9%) | 213 (16.8%) | < 0.001 |
| Diagnosis | ||||
| SCAD | 706 (24.5%) | 3389 (23.2%) | 273 (21.5%) | |
| UAP | 1377 (47.7%) | 7207 (49.3%) | 521 (41.0%) | < 0.001 |
| AMI | 801 (27.8%) | 4037 (27.6%) | 477 (37.5%) | |
| NYHA functional classification | ||||
| Class 1 | 798 (27.7%) | 4287 (29.3%) | 421 (33.1%) | |
| Class 2 | 1551 (53.8%) | 8092 (55.3%) | 624 (49.1%) | |
| Class 3 | 409 (14.2%) | 1800 (12.3%) | 179 (14.1%) | 0.073 |
| Class 4 | 126 (4.4%) | 454 (3.1%) | 47 (3.7%) | |
| Laboratory variables | ||||
| Creatinine, umol/L | 80.8 (69.0, 94.0) | 77.0 (66.0, 90.1) | 73.1 (61.1, 85.4) | < 0.001 |
| FPG, mmol/L | 6.0 (5.1, 7.9) | 5.9 (5.1, 7.4) | 5.8 (5.0, 7.2) | < 0.001 |
| LDL-C, mmol/L | 2.6 (2.0, 3.2) | 2.8 (2.3, 3.5) | 3.0 (2.4, 3.7) | < 0.001 |
| HDL-C, mmol/L | 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) | 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) | 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) | < 0.001 |
| K+, mmol/L | 4.0 (3.8, 4.3) | 4.1 (3.9, 4.4) | 4.3 (4.0, 4.5) | < 0.001 |
| LVEDD, mm | 49 (46, 53) | 48 (45, 52) | 49 (45, 53) | < 0.001 |
| LVEF, % | 62 (54, 68) | 62 (55, 68) | 62 (55, 68) | 0.001 |
Data were presented as median (interquartile range) for quantitative variables or as n (%) for qualitative variables. AMI: acute myocardial infarction; FPG: fasting plasma, glucose; HDL-C: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; K+: potassium ion; LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LVEDD: left ventricular end diastolic dimension; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA: New York Heart Association; SCAD: stable coronary artery disease; UAP: unstable angina pectoris.
Table 2. Angiographic and procedural characteristics.
| Characteristics | Low (n = 2884) | Normal (n = 14633) | High (n = 1271) | P Value |
| Angiographic stenosis location | ||||
| LM | 170 (5.9%) | 745 (5.1%) | 81 (6.4%) | 0.045 |
| LAD | 2196 (76.1%) | 1,1035 (75.4%) | 974 (76.6%) | 0.477 |
| LCX | 1455 (50.5%) | 7163 (49.0%) | 591 (46.5%) | 0.060 |
| RCA | 1569 (54.4%) | 7661 (52.4%) | 662 (52.1%) | 0.120 |
| LM or multivessel disease | 1717 (59.5%) | 8369 (57.2%) | 713 (56.1%) | 0.039 |
| Number of stents implanted | 1 (1, 2) | 1 (1, 2) | 1 (1,2) | < 0.001 |
| Single stent implanted | 1866 (64.7%) | 8531 (58.3%) | 770 (60.6%) | < 0.001 |
| Stent diameter, mm | 3.0 (2.75, 3.5) | 3.0 (2.5, 3.5) | 3.0 (2.5, 3.5) | 0.003 |
| Stent diameter < 3.0 mm | 1058 (36.7%) | 6204 (42.4%) | 520 (40.9%) | < 0.001 |
| Stent length, mm | 21 (18, 28) | 24 (18, 29) | 24 (18, 28) | < 0.001 |
| Intraoperative GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration | 326 (11.3%) | 2283 (15.6%) | 244 (19.2%) | < 0.001 |
| Transradial approach | 1568 (54.4%) | 6848 (46.8%) | 599 (47.1%) | < 0.001 |
Results are expressed as median (interquartile range) for quantitative variables or as n (%) for qualitative variables. LAD; left anterior descending; LCX: left circumflex; LM: left main; RCA: right coronary artery.
With respect to medications used in hospital and upon discharge (Table 3), there were no significant differences regarding the use of clopidogrel among the 3 groups, whereas maintenance dose and loading dose of aspirin tended to be lower in the low group. The use of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was more frequent in the patients with lower baseline PC than the others.
Table 3. Medications used in hospital and upon discharge.
| Variable | Low (n = 2884) | Normal (n = 14633) | High (n = 1271) | P value |
| Aspirin | ||||
| Loading therapy | ||||
| Loading dose ≥ 300 mg/d | 2466 (85.5%) | 12862 (87.9%) | 1098 (86.4%) | |
| Loading dose < 300 mg/d | 176 (6.1%) | 849 (5.8%) | 75 (5.9%) | 0.058 |
| No loading dose | 242 (8.4%) | 922 (6.3%) | 98 (7.7%) | |
| Maintenance therapy | ||||
| Maintenance dose ≥ 81 mg/d | 2527 (87.6%) | 12956 (88.5%) | 1101 (86.6%) | |
| Maintenance dose < 81 mg/d | 218 (7.6%) | 849 (5.8%) | 79 (6.2%) | 0.010 |
| No maintenance dose | 139 (4.8%) | 828 (5.7%) | 91 (7.2%) | |
| Clopidogrel | ||||
| Loading therapy | ||||
| Loading dose ≥ 300 mg/d | 2662 (92.3%) | 13477 (92.1%) | 1174 (92.4%) | |
| Loading dose < 300 mg/d | 173 (6.0%) | 922 (6.3%) | 75 (5.9%) | 0.162 |
| No loading dose | 49 (1.7%) | 234 (1.6%) | 22 (1.7%) | |
| Maintenance therapy | ||||
| Maintenance dose ≥ 75 mg/d | 2788 (96.7%) | 14169 (96.8%) | 1229 (96.7%) | |
| Maintenance dose < 75 mg/d | 61 (2.1%) | 293 (2.0%) | 26 (2.0%) | 0.946 |
| No maintenance dose | 35 (1.2%) | 171 (1.2%) | 16 (1.3%) | |
| LMWH | 2168 (75.2%) | 11116 (76.0%) | 925 (72.8%) | 0.033 |
| PPI | 1358 (47.1%) | 6266 (42.8%) | 524 (41.2%) | < 0.001 |
| Statin | 2628 (91.1%) | 13338 (91.2%) | 1133 (89.1%) | 0.055 |
| ACEI | 1460 (50.6%) | 7435 (50.8%) | 663 (52.2%) | 0.625 |
| ARB | 506 (17.5%) | 2567 (17.5%) | 211 (16.6%) | 0.695 |
| CCB | 744 (25.8%) | 4272 (29.2%) | 368 (29.0%) | 0.001 |
| β-blocker | 1960 (68.0%) | 10141 (69.3%) | 832 (65.5%) | 0.010 |
Data were presented as n (%) for qualitative variables. ACEI: angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB: angiotensin receptor blockers; CCB: calcium channel blockers; LMWH: low molecular weight heparins; PPI: proton pump inhibitors.
3.4. Association between baseline PC and clinical outcomes
3.4.1. Primary endpoints
In the overall cohort, 77 patients (0.4%) died in the hospital, and 120 patients (0.6%) died during the long-term follow-up (median 23.8 months). Compared with the normal group, both the low and high groups had the similar in-hospital and follow-up all-cause mortality (Table 4). In-hospital mortality rates for patients in the low, normal, and high group were 0.6%, 0.4%, and 0.4%, respectively; P = 0.259; and follow-up mortality rates for patients in the low, normal, and high group were 0.9%, 0.6%, and 0.7%, respectively; P = 0.079. After multivariable adjustment, patients with lower or higher baseline PC tended to have similar risks for both in-hospital and follow-up mortality compared with the normal group. As indicated in Table 5, hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of in-hospital death for the low and high group were 0.843 (95% CI: 0.412–1.723; P = 0.639) and 0.668 (95% CI: 0.236–1.890; P = 0.447), respectively; and the HRs of follow-up death for the low and high group were 1.204 (95% CI: 0.708–2.049; P = 0.493) and 0.942 (95% CI: 0.407–2.181; P = 0.889), respectively. Further subgroup analyses failed to demonstrate independent prognostic value of baseline PC in specific population groups except patients underwent transfemoral PCI (Figure 3). Kaplan–Meier curves of in-hospital (Figure 4A) and follow-up mortality (Figure 4B) were presented in Figure 4. The cumulative survival rates in patients with low or high baseline PC continued to be similar to that in normal group (P = 0.548 and 0.082, respectively).
Table 4. Clinical outcomes at follow-ups.
| Variable | Low (n = 2884) | Normal (n = 14,633) | High (n = 1271) | P value |
| Primary endpoints | ||||
| In-hospital mortality | 17 (0.6%) | 55 (0.4%) | 5 (0.4%) | 0.259 |
| Follow-up mortality | 27 (0.9%) | 84 (0.6%) | 9 (0.7%) | 0.079 |
| Secondary endpoints | ||||
| Major bleeding requiring a blood transfusion | 13 (0.5%) | 41 (0.3%) | 4 (0.3%) | 0.320 |
Table 5. Independent predictors of in-hospital and long-term mortality.
| Variable | In-hospital mortality |
Two-year mortality |
||||
| HR | 95% CI | P Value | HR | 95% CI | P Value | |
| Age ≥ 75 yrs | 2.277 | 1.264–4.102 | 0.006 | 3.103 | 1.908–5.044 | < 0.001 |
| Female | 2.240 | 1.321–3.800 | 0.003 | 1.577 | 1.002–2.480 | 0.049 |
| Hypertension | 0.825 | 0.484–1.404 | 0.478 | 0.792 | 0.514–1.219 | 0.289 |
| AMI | 3.024 | 1.736–5.267 | < 0.001 | 2.296 | 1.473–3.581 | < 0.001 |
| Baseline PC | ||||||
| Low | 0.843 | 0.412–1.723 | 0.639 | 1.204 | 0.708–2.049 | 0.493 |
| Normal | 1.0 (Ref) | — | 1.0 (Ref) | — | ||
| High | 0.668 | 0.236–1.890 | 0.447 | 0.942 | 0.407–2.181 | 0.889 |
| Creatinine, umol/L | 1.004 | 1.001–1.007 | 0.017 | 1.004 | 1.002–1.007 | 0.001 |
| FPG, mmol/L | 0.958 | 0.869–1.057 | 0.396 | 1.062 | 0.997–1.131 | 0.061 |
| LDL-C, mmol/L | 1.164 | 0.889–1.522 | 0.269 | 0.972 | 0.771–1.224 | 0.807 |
| LVEF, % | 0.975 | 0.954–0.996 | 0.021 | 0.973 | 0.955–0.991 | 0.003 |
| LM or multivessel disease | 1.830 | 0.980–3.419 | 0.058 | 1.655 | 1.031–2.655 | 0.037 |
| Single stent implanted | 0.854 | 0.396–1.460 | 0.183 | 0.924 | 0.650–0.998 | 0.035 |
| Stent diameter < 3.0 mm | 1.238 | 0.474–1.981 | 0.252 | 1.195 | 0.623–1.711 | 0.142 |
| Stent length, mm | 1.009 | 0.874–1.673 | 0.470 | 1.016 | 0.883–1.910 | 0.236 |
| Intraoperative GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration | 0.910 | 0.671–1. 158 | 0.086 | 0.974 | 0.683–2.265 | 0.391 |
| Transradial approach | 0.782 | 0.445–0.974 | 0.006 | 0.873 | 0.516–0.983 | 0.035 |
| Aspirin | 0.464 | 0.208–1.035 | 0.061 | 0.601 | 0.283–1.274 | 0.184 |
| Clopidogrel | 0.181 | 0.052–0.630 | 0.007 | 0.221 | 0.069–0.707 | 0.011 |
AMI: acute myocardial infarction; CI: confidence interval; FPG: fasting plasma, glucose; GP: glycoprotein; HR: hazard ratio; LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LM: left main; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; PC: platelet count.
Figure 3. Subgroup analyses of the prognostic value of baseline platelet count.
(A): Relationship between baseline platelet count and in-hospital mortality in subgroups; (B): relationship between baseline platelet count and follow-up mortality in subgroups. AMI: acute myocardial infarction; CI: confidence intervals; HR: hazard ratio; SCAD: stable coronary artery disease; UAP: unstable angina pectoris.
Figure 4. Kaplan–Meier curves of in-hospital and follow-up mortality.
(A): Kaplan–Meier curves of in-hospital mortality; (B): Kaplan–Meier curves of follow-up mortality.
3.4.2. Secondary endpoint
There was also no significant difference in the incidence of hemorrhage among groups (major bleeding requiring a blood transfusion in the low, normal, and high group were 0.5%, 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively; P = 0.320). After multivariable adjustment, low (HR: 1.978; 95% CI: 0.975–3.818; P = 0.052) or high baseline PC (HR: 1.264; 95% CI: 0.443–3.601; P = 0.662) did not significantly increase the risk of major bleeding (Table 6).
Table 6. Independent predictors of major bleeding requiring a blood transfusion.
| Variable | OR | 95% CI | P Value |
| Age ≥ 75 yrs | 0.862 | 0.306–2.430 | 0.779 |
| Female | 1.924 | 1.028–3.600 | 0.041 |
| Hypertension | 0.801 | 0.45 –1.423 | 0.449 |
| History of stroke | 1.409 | 0.430–4.616 | 0.571 |
| AMI | 2.228 | 1.234–4.024 | 0.008 |
| Baseline PC | |||
| Low | 1.978 | 0.975–3.818 | 0.052 |
| Normal | 1.0 (Ref) | — | |
| High | 1.264 | 0.443–3.601 | 0.662 |
| Hematocrit, % | 0.958 | 0.932–0.983 | 0.001 |
| Creatinine, umol/L | 1.006 | 1.002–1.009 | 0.001 |
| FPG, mmol/L | 1.009 | 0.914–1.113 | 0.862 |
| LDL-C, mmol/L | 0.994 | 0.732–1.350 | 0.968 |
| LVEF, % | 0.968 | 0.944–0.993 | 0.013 |
| LM or multivessel disease | 1.223 | 0.680–2.199 | 0.502 |
| Intraoperative GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration | 1.216 | 0.787–3.458 | 0.435 |
| Transradial approach | 0.762 | 0.391–0.960 | 0.030 |
| Aspirin | 1.669 | 0.826–2.570 | 0.558 |
| Clopidogrel | 1.125 | 1.029–1.532 | 0.005 |
| PPI | 0.893 | 0.455–0.996 | 0.062 |
AMI: acute myocardial infarction; CI: confidence interval; FPG: fasting plasma, glucose; GP: glycoprotein; LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LM: left main; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; OR: odds ratios; PC: platelet count; PPI: proton pump inhibitors.
3.4.3. Tertiary endpoints
Although none of the tertiary endpoints were clinical adverse events, any of them could indirectly reflect the general incidence of severe adverse events. As indicated in Figure 5A, there was no significant difference in the total hospitalization expenses among groups (P = 0.342). There were statistically significant differences in the length of in-hospital stay (median value in three groups were all 7 days, P < 0.001) (Figure 5B), the length of stay before PCI (median value in three groups were all 2 days, P = 0.047) (Figure 5C), the length of stay after PCI (median value in 3 groups were all 4 days, P < 0.001) (Figure 5D), but the statistical differences did not translate into clinical importance.
Figure 5. Comparisons of the tertiary endpoints among groups with different baseline platelet count.
(A): Comparisons of the total hospitalization expenses among groups; (B): comparisons of the length of in-hospital stay among groups; (C): comparisons of the length of stay before PCI among groups; (D): comparisons of the length of stay after PCI among groups. CNY: Chinese Yuan; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention.
4. Discussion
The PCI technique and the adjunctive pharmacotherapy have made great progress in the following several decades.[16] However, thrombosis and hemorrhage have always been the the major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients underwent PCI.[1],[2] Therefore, patients with impaired quantity and quality of platelets were often excluded from prospective randomized controlled trials because of the potential increased risks of thrombosis and hemorrhage following PCI. Few pooled post-hoc analyses[7]–[15] and cohort studies[13]–[15] drew inconsistent conclusions based on data mostly from thrombolysis or BMS era.
Gibson, et al.[12] demonstrated that in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who were treated with aspirin, high baseline PC was independently associated with increased rates of reinfarction at 30-day follow-up. However, clopidogrel therapy abolished this increase in the risk of reinfarction as PC increased. Iijima, et al.[7] argued that in patients underwent PCI after pre-treatment with 600 mg clopidogrel, high baseline PC was still independently associated with 30-day mortality. Others[9]–[11] agreed with that, high baseline PC was independently associated with an increased risk of adverse events following PCI. Whereas there was one more post-hoc analysis[8] revealing that low baseline PC in STEMI patients underwent PCI was strongly associated with 30-day adverse events but not with any 2-year adverse events. Similarly, a cohort study[15] showed that in-hospital death rate was higher in patients with low baseline PC due to an increased mortality in AMI patients underwent urgent but not elective PCI. In another cohort study,[14] baseline PC was not an independent predictor of 30-day mortality in AMI patients after adjustment of confounders. Interestingly, a U-shaped association between baseline PC and long-term outcomes was also proposed.[13] Wu, et al.[17] demonstrated a significant association between baseline PC and clinical outcomes by meta-analysis of the above eight studies.[9]–[13],[15]–[17] They confirmed a U-shaped relationship between baseline PC and the risk of mortality and adverse events. At 1-month follow-up, compared with the low PC group (< 150 × 1000/µL), the pooled relative risks of mortality and adverse events were 1.78 and 1.63 for the high PC group (> 350 × 1000/µL). At long-term follow-up, the pooled relative risks of mortality and adverse events were 1.48 and 1.28, respectively, for the high PC group.
However, the above studies have many limitations. Firstly, most of the patient population were AMI[9]–[12],[14],[16] or high-risk patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).[13],[17] Even in the remainder one study,[15] the elective PCI accounted for less than 50%. Accordingly, conclusions drawn from the above studies could not be applicable to all CAD patients. Secondly, the sample sizes of such studies did not provide sufficient statistical power to detect low incidences of events in all prespecified groups according to clinical significance. Although equal interval classification[10],[12],[17] could increase statistical power, it might reduce the clinical significance of the cut-off points. Thirdly, not all patients in the above studies underwent PCI.[9],[11]–[13],[16],[17] Lastly, and most important of all, some latest advances recommended by guidelines[18]–[20] were not reflected in the above studies, including DAPT, transradial approach for PCI, and PPI, etc.
Different from previous studies, we found that there were no significant differences among patients with different baseline PC in severe adverse outcomes, including in-hospital mortality, long-term follow-up mortality, and major bleeding requiring a blood transfusion. Although the exact mechanism is not fully understood, several factors with well-established benefits may be involved in the changing pattern between baseline PC and outcomes, including increased use of clopidogrel added to aspirin,[21]–[24] transradial approach PCI,[25]–[27] PPI,[28],[29] and optimization of stent implantation.[30],[31]
5. Conclusions
There is no significant association between baseline PC and severe adverse outcomes following PCI in current real-world practice.
Acknowledgments
The Beijing Heart and Metabolism Survey (BHMS) was supported by grants from the Beijing Nova Program (No. Z121107002512053), the Beijing Health System High Level Health Technology Talent Cultivation Plan (No. 2013-3-013), the Beijing Outstanding Talent Training Program (No. 2014000021223ZK32), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81100143), the Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Clinical Medicine Development of Special Funding Support (No. ZYLX201303), and the National Key Clinical Specialty Construction Project.
References
- 1.Navarese EP, Andreotti F, Schulze V, et al. Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug eluting stents: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2015;350:h1618. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1618. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Rao SV. The conundrum of reducing ischemic and bleeding events after PCI. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:1421–1423. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mega JL, Simon T. Pharmacology of antithrombotic drugs: an assessment of oral antiplatelet and anticoagulant treatments. Lancet. 2015;386:281–291. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60243-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Wiviott SD, Steg PG. Clinical evidence for oral antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndromes. Lancet. 2015;386:292–302. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60213-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Schafer AI. Thrombocytosis. N Eng J Med. 2004;350:1211–1219. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra035363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Thachil J, Fitzmaurice D. Thrombocytopenia in an adult. BMJ. 2013;346:f3407. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f3407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Iijima R, Ndrepepa G, Mehilli J, et al. Relationship between platelet count and 30-day clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions. Pooled analysis of four ISAR trials. Thromb Haemost. 2007;98:852–857. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hakim DA, Dangas GD, Caixeta A, et al. Impact of baseline thrombocytopenia on the early and late outcomes after ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty: analysis from the harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and dtents in acute myocardial infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) trial. Am Heart J. 2011;161:391–396. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mahaffey KW, Yang Q, Pieper KS, et al. Prediction of one-year survival in high-risk patients with acute coronary syndromes: results from the SYNERGY trial. J Gen InternMed. 2008;23:310–316. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0498-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Nikolsky E, Grines CL, Cox DA, et al. Impact of baseline platelet count in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction (from the CADILLAC trial) Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1055–1061. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.11.066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ly HQ, Kirtane AJ, Murphy SA, et al. Association of platelet counts on presentation and clinical outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (from the TIMI Trials) Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.01.046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Gibson CM, Ly HQ, Murphy SA, et al. Usefulness of clopidogrel in abolishing the increased risk of reinfarction associated with higher platelet counts in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (results from CLARITY-TIMI 28) Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:761–763. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.03.062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Mueller C, Neumann FJ, Hochholzer W, et al. The impact of platelet count on mortality in unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2006;151:1214.e1–e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.03.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Sjauw KD, van der Horst IC, Nijsten MW, et al. Value of routine admission laboratory tests to predict thirty-day mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:1435–1440. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.12.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Overgaard CB, Ivanov J, Seidelin PH, et al. Thrombocytopenia at baseline is a predictor of inhospital mortality in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J. 2008;156:120–124. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Meier B. The first patient to undergo coronary angioplasty--23-year follow-up. N Eng J Med. 2001;344:144–145. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200101113440217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Wu Y, Wu H, Mueller C, et al. Baseline platelet count and clinical outcome in acute coronary syndrome. Circ J. 2012;76:704–711. doi: 10.1253/circj.cj-11-0707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Fihn SD, Blankenship JC, Alexander KP, et al. 2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS focused update of the guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1929–1949. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.07.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:e139–e228. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2541–2619. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Mehta SR, Tanguay JF, Eikelboom JW, et al. 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;376:1233–1243. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61088-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Widimsky P, Motovska Z, Simek S, et al. Clopidogrel pre-treatment in stable angina: for all patients > 6 h before elective coronary angiography or only for angiographically selected patients a few minutes before PCI? A randomized multicentre trial PRAGUE-8. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:1495–1503. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehn169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Montalescot G, Sideris G, Meuleman C, et al. A randomized comparison of high clopidogrel loading doses in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: the ALBION (Assessment of the Best Loading Dose of Clopidogrel to Blunt Platelet Activation, Inflammation and Ongoing Necrosis) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:931–938. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.04.090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Di SG, Patti G, Pasceri V, et al. Effectiveness of in-laboratory high-dose clopidogrel loading versus routine pre-load in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results of the ARMYDA-5 PRELOAD (Antiplatelet therapy for Reduction of MYocardial Damage during Angioplasty) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:550–557. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Wimmer NJ, Resnic FS, Mauri L, et al. Comparison of transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in routine practice: evidence for the importance of “falsification hypotheses” in observational studies of comparative effectiveness. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:2147–2148. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lee MS, Wolfe M, Stone GW, et al. Transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes: re-evaluation of the current body of evidence. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:1149–1152. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.08.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Eleid MF, Rihal CS, Gulati R, et al. Systematic use of transradial PCI in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a call to “arms”. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:1145–1148. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.O'Donoghue ML, Braunwald E, Antman EM, et al. Pharmacodynamic effect and clinical efficacy of clopidogrel and prasugrel with or without a proton-pump inhibitor: an analysis of two randomised trials. Lancet. 2009;374:989–997. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61525-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Harjai KJ, Shenoy C, Orshaw P, et al. Clinical outcomes in patients with the concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors after percutaneous coronary intervention: an analysis from the Guthrie Health Off-Label Stent (GHOST) investigators. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:162–170. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.110.958884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Rogacka R, Latib A, Colombo A, et al. IVUS-guided stent implantation to improve outcome: a promise waiting to be fulfilled. Curr Cardiol Rev. 2009;5:78–86. doi: 10.2174/157340309788166697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kim JS, Ha J, Kim BK, et al. The relationship between post-stent strut apposition and follow-up strut coverage assessed by a contour plot optical coherence tomography analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:641–651. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.12.205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]