Aspirin Resistance in Children after Interventional Cardiac Catheterisation.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Several large trials have demonstrated the benefit of aspirin for the prevention of arterial thrombotic events in adults. Aspirin has also been increasingly used as an anti-platelet agent in children. However, very few well-designed clinical trials assessing the clinical efficacy and dosing of aspirin in children have been performed. In children, aspirin is usually administrated at a dose between 1 and 10 mg/kg/day. The term “aspirin resistance” (AR) describes the inability of aspirin to protect individuals from arterial thrombotic events (clinical AR) or the failure of aspirin to produce an expected response on laboratory measures of platelet activation and aggregation (laboratory AR). In adults, a prevalence of 5%–51% of AR had been reported, depending on the laboratory method used. A recent study using the platelet function analyser PFA-100 and levels of urinary 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (11-dTXB2) excretion to define AR in paediatric cardiology patients, found a prevalence of 26% of laboratory AR (Heistein et al 2007). Here we studied the frequency of AR in children given aspirin at 3–5 mg/kg/d after interventional cardiac catheterization for atrial or ventricular septal defects or patent ductus arteriosus. Blood samples were taken 1–3 months after the initiation of aspirin therapy. Definition of AR was based on results from platelet aggregometry (% arachidonate-induced aggregation (AAG) of ≥ 20%) and results were compared with collagen/epinephrine closure times using the platelet function analyser PFA-100 and the levels of 11-dTXB2 excretion. As cyclooxygenase 1 (COX-1) is the primary target of aspirin and mutations could lead to a loss of functional protein, the presence of COX-1 was analyzed by western blot. Further, all children were followed clinically and side effects were monitored. Of 56 children included to date (median age: 10 y, range: 10 mo −20 y), 44 have completed the study. AR, was detected in 6 (14%) children. Of these 6 children, 3 had a normal response to aspirin (i.e. decreased AAG to <20%) after doubling the dose to 6–10 mg/kg, 1 child did not respond to a dose increase, and 2 were unavailable for further studies. Children under the age of 7 had higher urinary 11-dTXB2 levels initially compared to older children (323 vs 178 ng/mmol creatinine; p< 0.001). During aspirin therapy, 11-dTXB2 levels decreased to 38 ± 15 ng/mmol creatinine (mean ± SD). However, in 2 children, 11-dTXB2 decreased only minimally (81 and 84% of pre-aspirin level, respectively; results > mean+2SD ): Of these 2 children, one child had AR by the AAG definition even after aspirin dose increase and the other revealed AR by the PFA-100, with normal closure time, but not by AAG. While PFA-100 closure times were prolonged in 48% of children already prior to administration of aspirin, all children with AR according to AAG had prolonged closure times during aspirin-therapy. All 6 AR patients and 10 patients with a normal response to aspirin by AAG demonstrated equal amounts of COX-1 by western blot. While 6 children (14%) showed easy bruising and epistaxis during aspirin therapy, no severe bleeding or thrombotic complications were recorded In conclusion, AR was detected in 14% of children after interventional cardiac catheterization by AAG and could be overcome in some patients by increasing the dose of aspirin. These results are in keeping with findings from adults. By the use of the PFA-100 a previous study found a prevalence of 26% of AR in children (Heistein et al 2007). However, the authors did not correlate these results to AAG. In our cohort, the assessment of AR by the PFA100 was hampered by a high rate of abnormal PFA results previous to the initiation of therapy. Although reduction of 11-dTXB2 excretion indicates an inhibition of the COX-1 pathway by aspirin therapy, 11-dTXB2 and AAG results were not always congruent.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».