ArticleClinical hemorheology and microcirculation2021
Performance comparison of aspirin assay between Anysis and VerifyNow: Assessment of therapeutic platelet inhibition in patients with cardiac diseases.
Article in Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Performance comparison of the PFA-200 and Anysis-200: Assessment of bleeding risk screening in cardiology patients.Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessment of platelet inhibition for aspirin therapy is important to manage patients who are at potential risk of developing thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate a new platelet assay (Anysis-aspirin), compare it with VerifyNow-aspirin in patients with cardiac diseases, and analyze the aspirin resistance rates between the two devices.
methodsCitrated blood samples were collected from patients with cardiac diseases referred for the aspirin response test. In the Anysis assay, a test result was provided with a blood flow migration distance (MD) until blood flow stoppage, which was comparable to aspirin reaction units (ARUs) obtained using VerifyNow. The measurements were simultaneously conducted using the two devices and compared.
resultsThe MD without and with aspirin use was 160±33 and 254±23 mm, respectively (p < 0.0001). Compared with VerifyNow (reference), the sensitivity and specificity of Anysis-200 were 96.3 and 90.3%, respectively (area under the curve, 0.968). Furthermore, the aspirin resistance rate in aspirin-administered patients was 20.9%using VerifyNow and 16.5%for Anysis-200. The Cohen's kappa coefficient between the two devices was 0.81, indicating an almost perfect agreement between the two devices.
conclusionsAnysis-aspirin, a novel aspirin assay for assessing platelet inhibition, showed excellent agreement with VerifyNow-aspirin with high accuracy and precision. The Anysis-aspirin assay would be used as a point-of-care test to assess aspirin non-responsiveness and abnormal platelet reactivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.