Clopidogrel resistance is common in patients undergoing vascular and coronary interventions.

OBJECTIVES: "Clopidogrel resistance," also defined as heightened platelet reactivity (HPR) while on clopidogrel therapy, may lead to a sub-optimal antiplatelet effect and a potential thrombotic event. There is limited literature addressing the prevalence of HPR in a large cohort of patients receiving either coronary or endovascular interventions. METHODS: In a large integrated healthcare system, patients with a P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) test were identified. HPR was defined as a PRU ≥ 200 during clopidogrel therapy. Vascular and coronary interventions were identified utilizing CPT codes, HPR prevalence was calculated, and Fischer's exact test was used to determine significance. RESULTS: From an initial cohort of 2,405,957 patients (October 2014 to January 2020), we identified 3301 patients with PRU tests administered. Of these, 1789 tests had a PRU ≥ 200 (HPR overall prevalence, 54%). We then identified 1195 patients who underwent either an endovascular or coronary procedure and had a PRU measurement. This corresponded to 935 coronary and 260 endovascular interventions. In the coronary cohort, the HPR prevalence was 54% (503/935). In the vascular cohort, the HPR prevalence was 53% (137/260); there was no difference between cohorts in HPR prevalence (p = 0.78). CONCLUSION: "Clopidogrel resistance" or HPR was found to be present in nearly half of patients with cardiovascular disease undergoing intervention. Our data suggest HPR is more common in the cardiovascular patient population than previously appreciated. Evaluating patients for HPR is both inexpensive ($25) and rapid (< 10 min). Future randomized studies are warranted to determine whether HPR has a clinically detectable effect on revascularization outcomes.

Successful treatment of a persistent type IA endoleak with endoanchors following chimney endovascular aortic repair.

The chimney endovascular aortic repair technique has become an increasingly used option for the treatment of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms; however, type IA and gutter endoleaks complicate this approach in up to 5.9% of cases. Successful treatment of these leaks is challenging. We report a case of a patient who underwent two-vessel chimney endovascular aortic repair in the treatment of a 5.9-cm juxtarenal aortic aneurysm and developed a type IA endoleak. The endoleak was successfully treated with Heli-FX EndoAnchor placement. Resolution of the endoleak was noted at continued follow-up through 54 months.