Assessment of Dual-Antiplatelet Regimen for Pipeline Embolization Device Placement: A Survey of Major Academic Neurovascular Centers in the United States.

Gupta, Raghav; Moore, Justin M; Griessenauer, Christoph J; Adeeb, Nimer; Patel, Apar S; Youn, Roy; Poliskey, Karen; Thomas, Ajith J; Ogilvy, Christopher S

INTRODUCTION Flow diversion with the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) currently is adopted for treatment of a variety of intracranial aneurysms. The elevated risk of thromboembolic complications associated with the device necessitates the need for administration of antiplatelet agents. We sought to assess current dual-antiplatelet therapy practices patterns and their associated costs after PED placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS An online questionnaire that assessed dual-antiplatelet regimens after flow diversion for treatment of intracranial aneurysms was developed and disseminated to 80 neurosurgeons at major academic cerebrovascular centers. Pricing information from 2 of the largest prescription payers in Massachusetts was used to calculate the monthly cost of these agents. RESULTS Twenty-six responses (32.5%) were received. All respondents (100%) affirmed using clopidogrel and aspirin dual-antiplatelet therapy as a first-line regimen. Twenty-three (88.5%) routinely use platelet function testing. Eleven respondents (42.3%) each identified that they administer aspirin/ticagrelor and aspirin/prasugrel to clopidogrel hypo- or nonresponders. For uninsured patients, prasugrel was found to have the highest cumulative monthly cost ($471), followed by ticagrelor ($396), clopidogrel ($149), and ticlopidine ($110). CONCLUSIONS Significant heterogeneity in dual-antiplatelet regimens after PED placement and associated costs exists at major academic neurovascular centers. The most commonly used first-line dual-antiplatelet regimen consists of aspirin and clopidogrel. Two major alternate protocols involving ticagrelor and prasugrel are administered to clopidogrel hyporesponders. The optimal dual-antiplatelet regimen for patients with cerebrovascular conditions has not been established, given limited prospective data within the neurointerventional literature.