P2Y12 Reaction Units Threshold for Implementing Modified Antiplatelet Preparation in Coil Embolization of Unruptured Aneurysms: A Prospective Validation Study

A P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) threshold of at least 220 was identified and clinically validated as the PRU threshold for implementing modified antiplatelet preparation to prevent thromboembolic events in clopidogrel nonresponders undergoing coil embolization of unruptured aneurysms.


To identify and apply an optimized P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) threshold for implementing modified antiplatelet preparation to prevent thromboembolic events in patients nonresponsive to clopidogrel (clopidogrel nonresponders) undergoing coil embolization of unruptured aneurysms and to evaluate the clinical validity.

Materials and Methods

The optimal PRU threshold for prediction of thromboembolic events was determined with the Youden index in post hoc analysis of a previous, prospectively enrolled cohort of 165 patients in whom the antiplatelet regimen was not modified. This optimal PRU threshold was used to define clopidogrel nonresponders in a prospective validation study of 244 patients. Standard preparation (aspirin, clopidogrel) was maintained for 126 patients responsive to clopidogrel (clopidogrel responders, 51.6%), and modified preparation (aspirin, prasugrel) was prescribed prior to embolization for 118 clopidogrel nonresponders (48.4%). Fifty-seven clopidogrel nonresponders from the previous cohort who did not receive the modified preparation were included as a historical control group. Thromboembolic and bleeding events were compared among groups by using logistic regression analysis.


Post hoc analysis from the previous cohort yielded PRU of at least 220 as the optimal threshold for modified preparation selection. The thromboembolic event rate of the clopidogrel responders (one of 126 [0.8%]) was lower than that of the historical control group that received standard preparation (seven of 57 patients [12.3%]; adjusted risk difference [RD], −10.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −18.5, −1.7; P = .015) and was similar to that of clopidogrel nonresponders who received modified preparation (one of 118 [0.8%]; adjusted RD, −0.5%; 95% CI: −3.1, 2.1; P = .001 for noninferiority; P = .699 for superiority). Bleeding event rates did not differ among groups (four of 126 clopidogrel responders [3.2%] vs four of 57 clopidogrel nonresponders that received standard preparation [7.0%] [adjusted RD, −4.5%; 95% CI: −11.1, 3.4; P = .228] vs five of 118 clopidogrel nonresponders that received modified preparation [4.2%] [adjusted RD, −0.6%; 95% CI: −5.8, 4.2; P = .813]).


Patients undergoing coil embolization of unruptured aneurysms, regardless of clopidogrel responsiveness, had low thromboembolic risk when using PRU of at least 220 as the threshold for implementing modified antiplatelet preparation with prasugrel.

© RSNA, 2016

Online supplemental material is available for this article.


  • 1. Pierot L, Wakhloo AK. Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: current status. Stroke 2013;44(7):2046–2054.
  • 2. Delgado Almandoz JE, Kadkhodayan Y, Crandall BM, Scholz JM, Fease JL, Tubman DE. Variability in initial response to standard clopidogrel therapy, delayed conversion to clopidogrel hyper-response, and associated thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications in patients undergoing endovascular treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg 2014;6(10):767–773.
  • 3. Fifi JT, Brockington C, Narang J, et al. Clopidogrel resistance is associated with thromboembolic complications in patients undergoing neurovascular stenting. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34(4):716–720.
  • 4. Kang HS, Kwon BJ, Kim JE, Han MH. Preinterventional clopidogrel response variability for coil embolization of intracranial aneurysms: clinical implications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31(7):1206–1210.
  • 5. Lee DH, Arat A, Morsi H, Shaltoni H, Harris JR, Mawad ME. Dual antiplatelet therapy monitoring for neurointerventional procedures using a point-of-care platelet function test: a single-center experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29(7):1389–1394.
  • 6. Pandya DJ, Fitzsimmons BF, Wolfe TJ, et al. Measurement of antiplatelet inhibition during neurointerventional procedures: the effect of antithrombotic duration and loading dose. J Neuroimaging 2010;20(1):64–69.
  • 7. Hwang G, Huh W, Lee JS, et al. Standard vs modified antiplatelet preparation for preventing thromboembolic events in patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity undergoing coil embolization for an unruptured intracranial aneurysm: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol 2015;72(7):764–772.
  • 8. Godino C, Mendolicchio L, Figini F, et al. Comparison of VerifyNow-P2Y12 test and flow cytometry for monitoring individual platelet response to clopidogrel. What is the cut-off value for identifying patients who are low responders to clopidogrel therapy? Thromb J 2009;7:4.
  • 9. Asai T, Miyachi S, Izumi T, et al. Relationship between low response to clopidogrel and periprocedural ischemic events with coil embolization for intracranial aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg 2016;8(7):752–755.
  • 10. Delgado Almandoz JE, Crandall BM, Scholz JM, et al. Pre-procedure P2Y12 reaction units value predicts perioperative thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications in patients with cerebral aneurysms treated with the Pipeline embolization device. J Neurointerv Surg 2013;5(Suppl 3):iii3–iii10.
  • 11. Delgado Almandoz JE, Crandall BM, Scholz JM, et al. Last-recorded P2Y12 reaction units value is strongly associated with thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications occurring up to 6 months after treatment in patients with cerebral aneurysms treated with the Pipeline embolization device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35(1):128–135.
  • 12. Kim B, Kim K, Jeon P, et al. Thromboembolic complications in patients with clopidogrel resistance after coil embolization for unruptured intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35(9):1786–1792.
  • 13. Tan LA, Keigher KM, Munich SA, Moftakhar R, Lopes DK. Thromboembolic complications with Pipeline embolization device placement: impact of procedure time, number of stents and pre-procedure P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) value. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7(3):217–221.
  • 14. Gandhi CD, Bulsara KR, Fifi J, et al. Platelet function inhibitors and platelet function testing in neurointerventional procedures. J Neurointerv Surg 2014;6(8):567–577.
  • 15. Leslie-Mazwi TM. Antiplatelet testing in neurointervention: we cannot ignore the signs. J Neurointerv Surg 2013;5(4):277–279.
  • 16. Kashiwazaki D, Kuwayama N, Akioka N, Hayakawa Y, Kuroda S. The roles and issues of P2Y12 percent inhibition assessed by VerifyNow assay for patients undergoing neurointervention: a prospective study. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2014;23(7):1830–1836.
  • 17. Sorkin GC, Dumont TM, Wach MM, et al. Carotid artery stenting outcomes: do they correlate with antiplatelet response assays? J Neurointerv Surg 2014;6(5):373–378.
  • 18. Hwang G, Jung C, Park SQ, et al. Thromboembolic complications of elective coil embolization of unruptured aneurysms: the effect of oral antiplatelet preparation on periprocedural thromboembolic complication. Neurosurgery 2010;67(3):743–748; discussion 748.
  • 19. Kang HS, Han MH, Kwon BJ, et al. Is clopidogrel premedication useful to reduce thromboembolic events during coil embolization for unruptured intracranial aneurysms? Neurosurgery 2010;67(5):1371–1376; discussion 1376.
  • 20. Matsumoto Y, Kondo R, Matsumori Y, Shimizu H, Takahashi A, Tominaga T. Antiplatelet therapy for prevention of thromboembolic complications associated with coil embolization of unruptured cerebral aneurysms. Drugs R D 2012;12(1):1–7.
  • 21. Kim MH, Zhang HZ, Jung DK. Pharmacodynamic comparisons for single loading doses of prasugrel (30 mg) and clopidogrel (600 mg) in healthy Korean volunteers. Circ J 2013;77(5):1253–1259.
  • 22. Lee DH, Kim MH, Guo LZ, Park MK, Yi SJ. Lower loading dose of prasugrel compared with conventional loading doses of clopidogrel and prasugrel in Korean patients undergoing elective coronary angiography: a randomized controlled study evaluating pharmacodynamic efficacy. Korean Circ J 2014;44(6):386–393.
  • 23. Meyers PM, Schumacher HC, Higashida RT, et al. Reporting standards for endovascular repair of saccular intracranial cerebral aneurysms. Stroke 2009;40(5):e366–e379.
  • 24. Tantry US, Bonello L, Aradi D, et al. Consensus and update on the definition of on-treatment platelet reactivity to adenosine diphosphate associated with ischemia and bleeding. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62(24):2261–2273.
  • 25. Akbari SH, Reynolds MR, Kadkhodayan Y, Cross DT 3rd, Moran CJ. Hemorrhagic complications after prasugrel (Effient) therapy for vascular neurointerventional procedures. J Neurointerv Surg 2013;5(4):337–343.
  • 26. Stetler WR, Chaudhary N, Thompson BG, Gemmete JJ, Maher CO, Pandey AS. Prasugrel is effective and safe for neurointerventional procedures. J Neurointerv Surg 2013;5(4):332–336.
  • 27. Goh C, Churilov L, Mitchell P, Dowling R, Yan B. Clopidogrel hyper-response and bleeding risk in neurointerventional procedures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34(4):721–726.
  • 28. Nishi H, Nakahara I, Matsumoto S, et al. Platelet reactivity and hemorrhage risk in neurointerventional procedures under dual antiplatelet therapy. J Neurointerv Surg 2015 Aug 21. [Epub ahead of print]
  • 29. Hwang G, Kim JG, Song KS, et al. Delayed ischemic stroke after stent-assisted coil placement in cerebral aneurysm: characteristics and optimal duration of preventative dual antiplatelet therapy. Radiology 2014;273(1):194–201.
  • 30. Rossen JD, Chalouhi N, Wassef SN, et al. Incidence of cerebral ischemic events after discontinuation of clopidogrel in patients with intracranial aneurysms treated with stent-assisted techniques. J Neurosurg 2012;117(5):929–933.

Article History

Received March 16, 2016; revision requested May 4; revision received June 13; accepted June 23; final version accepted July 13.
Published online: Sept 02 2016
Published in print: Feb 2017