Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAgayeva, Nergiz
dc.contributor.authorGungor, Levent
dc.contributor.authorTopcuoglu, Mehmet Akif
dc.contributor.authorArsava, Ethem Murat
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T13:47:13Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T13:47:13Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.issn1052-3057
dc.identifier.issn1532-8511
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.10.015
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/14414
dc.descriptionArsava, Ethem Murat/0000-0002-6527-4139en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000351856700011en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 25680657en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: A significant proportion of ischemic strokes occur while using aspirin and therefore can be considered as clinical aspirin resistance. Apart from this clinical description, aspirin resistance can be defined by laboratory tests of in vitro platelet reactivity. The correlation between clinical and laboratory-defined resistance, however, is far from perfect, and the heterogenous nature of stroke pathophysiology might play a role in this discrepancy. Methods: The level of in vitro platelet inhibition by aspirin was prospectively evaluated using the VerifyNow Aspirin Assay (Accumetrics, San Diego, CA) in patients presenting with ischemic stroke while using aspirin (n = 78). Demographic and clinical features, including stroke etiology, were compared among patients with and without sufficient level of platelet inhibition and an additional set of patients suffering from stroke while not using aspirin (n = 257). Similar analyses were performed in a separate validation cohort. Results: Laboratory evidence of insufficient platelet inhibition was detected in 16 of 78 patients (21%) with clinical aspirin resistance. On the other hand, 30 patients (38%) had stroke etiologies well known to be inadequately responsive to aspirin therapy. Overall, laboratory-defined resistance by itself could be considered to be accountable for the ischemic event in only 15% of these patients. The corresponding figure was 9% in validation cohort. Patients with sufficient level of platelet inhibition were more likely to harbor an anticoagulant responsive etiology compared with aspirin naive patients (odds ratio, 2.0; P = .033). Conclusions: Our findings highlight that laboratory aspirin resistance because of insufficient platelet inhibition is relatively uncommon, whereas pathophysiologic resistance, signifying the presence of etiologies that cannot be efficiently treated with aspirin treatment, is a major contributor of clinical resistance in ischemic stroke.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipTurkish Neurological Associationen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThe study was funded by a research grant from the Turkish Neurological Association.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.10.015en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAntiplatelet agentsen_US
dc.subjectantiplatelet resistanceen_US
dc.subjectaspirinen_US
dc.subjectstroke etiologyen_US
dc.subjectischemic strokeen_US
dc.titlePathophysiologic, Rather than Laboratory-defined Resistance Drives Aspirin Failure in Ischemic Strokeen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentOMÜen_US
dc.identifier.volume24en_US
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage745en_US
dc.identifier.endpage750en_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Stroke & Cerebrovascular Diseasesen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record