Factors that modulate platelet reactivity as measured by 5 assay platforms in 3429 individuals
Melissa V. Chan, Ming‐Huei Chen, Florian Thibord, Bongani B. Nkambule, Amber Lachapelle, Joseph Grech, Zoe E. Schneider, Catherine Wallace de Melendez, Jennifer E. Huffman, Melissa A. Hayman, Harriet E. Allan, Paul C. Armstrong, Timothy D. Warner, Andrew D. Johnson
Abstract
Background Assessment of platelet function is key in diagnosing bleeding disorders and evaluating antiplatelet drug efficacy. However, there is a prevailing "one-size-fits-all" approach in the interpretation of measures of platelet reactivity, with arbitrary cutoffs often derived from healthy volunteer responses. Objectives Our aim was to compare well-used platelet reactivity assays. Methods Blood and platelet-rich plasma obtained from the Framingham Heart Study ( N = 3429) were assayed using a range of agonists in 5 platelet assays: light transmission aggregometry, Optimul aggregometry, Multiplate impedance aggregometry (Roche Diagnostics), Total Thrombus-Formation Analysis System, and flow cytometry. Using linear mixed-effect models, we determined the contribution of preanalytical and technical factors that modulated platelet reactivity traits. Results A strong intra-assay correlation of platelet traits was seen in all assays, particularly Multiplate velocity ( r = 0.740; ristocetin vs arachidonic acid). In contrast, only moderate interassay correlations were observed ( r = 0.375; adenosine diphosphate Optimul E max vs light transmission aggregometry large area under the curve). As expected, antiplatelet drugs strongly reduced platelet responses, with aspirin use primarily targeting arachidonic acid–induced aggregation, and explained substantial variance (β = −1.735; P = 4.59 × 10 −780 ; variance proportion = 46.2%) and P2Y 12 antagonists blocking adenosine diphosphate responses (β = −1.612; P = 6.75 × 10 −27 ; variance proportion = 2.1%). Notably, female sex and older age were associated with enhanced platelet reactivity. Fasting status and deviations from standard venipuncture practices did not alter platelet reactivity significantly. Finally, the agonist batch, phlebotomist, and assay technician (more so for assays that require additional sample manipulation) had a moderate to large effect on measured platelet reactivity. Conclusion Caution must be exercised when extrapolating findings between assays, and the use of standard ranges must be medication-specific and sex-specific at a minimum. Researchers should also consider preanalytical and technical variables when designing experiments and interpreting platelet reactivity measures.