About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Thrombosis
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 720254, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/720254
Review Article

Do Aspirin and Other Antiplatelet Drugs Reduce the Mortality in Critically Ill Patients?

1Center for Sepsis Control and Care, Jena University Hospital, Erlanger Allee 101, 07740 Jena, Germany
2Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Center for Sepsis Control and Care, University Hospital Jena, Bachstraße 18, Gebäude 12, Eingang A, 07743 Jena, Germany

Received 6 June 2011; Accepted 3 October 2011

Academic Editor: Jeanine M. Walenga

Copyright © 2012 Wolfgang Lösche et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Platelet activation has been implicated in microvascular thrombosis and organ failure in critically ill patients. In the first part the present paper summarises important data on the role of platelets in systemic inflammation and sepsis as well as on the beneficial effects of antiplatelet drugs in animal models of sepsis. In the second part the data of retrospective and prospective observational clinical studies on the effect of aspirin and other antiplatelet drugs in critically ill patients are reviewed. All of these studies have shown that aspirin and other antiplatelet drugs may reduce organ failure and mortality in these patients, even in case of high bleeding risk. From the data reviewed here interventional prospective trials are needed to test whether aspirin and other antiplatelet drugs might offer a novel therapeutic option to prevent organ failure in critically ill patients.

1. Platelets in Systemic Inflammation and Sepsis

Sepsis and multiple organ failure are leading causes of death in critically ill patients. There is good evidence that blood platelets play an important role in the development of multiple organ failure (MOF) in these patients [13]. A decrease in the number of circulating platelets is very often observed when patients develop sepsis and MOF, and thrombocytopenia is a powerful predictor of mortality [46]. During systemic inflammation and infection platelets become activated as indicated by an increase in the number of CD62P-positive platelets and platelet-leukocyte conjugates [79]. Different mechanisms may contribute to platelet activation, including imbalance between plasma level of high molecular weight von-Willebrand factor and its cleaving protease, ADAMTS-13 [1013], and binding of endotoxins to specific receptors at the platelet surface [1416]. Adhesion of activated platelets within the microcirculation and formation of platelet aggregates contributes to vascular hyperpermeability as well as hypoperfusion [1720].

However, platelets do not only contribute to the sepsis-associated disturbances of haemostasis, but they also significantly influence inflammatory processes:(i)release of compounds with well-known pro- or anti-inflammatory effects such as cytokines, chemokines, and lipid mediators [2126],(ii)activation of the complement system [27, 28],(iii)release of antibacterial compounds and, together with neutrophils, trapping of bacteria [25, 2931],(iv)receptor-mediated adhesion to monocytes, neutrophils, and endothelial cells resulting in changes of cellular functions such as production of cytokines, chemokines, and reactive oxygen species as well as recruitment and immigration of leukocytes at the site of tissue damage [22, 25, 26, 32].

In summary, platelets may contribute to the development of MOF by disturbing blood flow as well as by modulating the systemic inflammation. Thus the question arises whether antiplatelet drugs may have a benefit on the outcome in critically ill patients, that is, in patients with systemic inflammation, severe infections, or sepsis.

2. Antiplatelet Drugs

Antiplatelet drugs are widely used in patients with cardiovascular disease for the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events [3436]. The mostly used drug is aspirin which is an irreversible inhibitor of cyclooxygenase. In platelets aspirin inhibits the formation of thromboxane A2 which is a potent platelet activator [37, 38]. Since aspirin also affects the cyclooxygenase in gastric mucosa which can lead to serious bleeding, it is used as an inhibitor of platelet function for the prevention in patients with risk for atherothrombosis in rather low dosage, that is, ≤325 mg/day, and in many patients at dosage lower than 160 mg/day [35, 36, 3942].

Clopidogrel and the more recently developed drugs prasugrel and ticagrelor are rather specific inhibitors of platelet function. These drugs or their metabolic products interact with the platelet ADP receptor P2Y12, and they are used in combination or instead of aspirin [4346]. Another group of antiplatelet agents are inhibitors of the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa complex on the platelet surface. These agents block the binding of fibrinogen to the receptor which is essential for platelet aggregation [4749].

3. Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Antiplatelet Drugs in Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases

Many studies have shown that aspirin and clopidogrel not only reduce the risk of atherothrombotic events, but also reduce markers of systemic inflammation including C-reactive protein, soluble CD62P and CD54, pro-inflammatory cytokines, and platelet-leukocyte conjugates in these patients [5054]. It is assumed that the anti-inflammatory effects of antiplatelet drugs are mediated by an inhibition of platelet activation [53].

4. Animal Studies on the Action of Antiplatelet Drugs in Systemic Inflammation and Sepsis

In the late seventies and in the eighties of the past century some studies on the beneficial effect of inhibitors of prostaglandin and thromboxane synthesis, including aspirin, on the survival in animal models of sepsis were reported [5557]. It was shown that aspirin reduced platelet accumulation in the lung in a mouse model of endotoxinaemia [58, 59]. Other studies investigated the effects of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Using monoclonal antibodies, a reduction of thrombotic microangiopathy and ischemic tissue injury in various animal models of endotoxinaemia or sepsis could be shown [6062]. More recently, the effects of the ADP receptor antagonist clopidogrel in endotoxinaemia were tested. Evangelista et al. [63, 64] reported an inhibition of platelet-dependent leukocyte activation as well as an inhibition of the production of proinflammatory cytokines in mice after endotoxin administration. Our group could recently show that in a similar mouse model clopidogrel prevented endotoxin-induced thrombocytopenia, reduced fibrin deposition in lung tissue, and inhibited the upregulation of some genes, known to be involved in inflammation, in peripheral blood cells [65]. In a mouse model of polymicrobial sepsis Seidel et al. [66] demonstrated that clopidogrel reduced cell damage and liver dysfunction as indicated by reducing the sepsis-mediated increase in serum lactate dehydrogenase activity and serum bilirubin concentration. Using a rat model of endotoxin-induced systemic inflammation Hagiwara et al. [67] reported that clopidogrel attenuated the increase in serum levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNFα, IL-6 and HMBG1) and the tissue injury in liver and lung. A benefit of clopidogrel was also shown in a rat model of chronic kidney disease [68].

5. Benefit of Aspirin and Other Antiplatelet Drugs in Critically Ill Patients

Based on the evidence that platelets play an important role in the development of organ failure in critically ill patients we performed three retrospective clinical studies. As critically ill patients are often elderly people we assumed that some of them might be on antiplatelet drugs for the prevention of thromboembolic events due to cardiovascular diseases. Indeed, 20–25% of the patients who were included in the analysis had a preexisting medication with aspirin or/and clopidogrel [33, 65]. Even if the administration of aspirin and/or clopidogrel was discontinued during the stay in hospital, inhibition of platelet function should persist for about one week [69, 70].

5.1. Patients Admitted to Hospital with Community Acquired Pneumonia

In a first study we analysed data from patients who were admitted to the hospital for community acquired pneumonia (CAP). Since statins are discussed to improve the outcome in critically ill patients [7176], patients with prehospital use of statins were excluded from the study. Two hundred twenty-four patients were enrolled and 38 of them had a preexisting medication with aspirin and 8 were on clopidogrel or ticlopidin for at least 6 month prior to admission to hospital [65]. As endpoints of the study we used the length of stay in the hospital, and the admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) as an indicator of organ failure. Despite the fact that patients on antiplatelet drugs were about 12 years older when compared to those without such preexisting medication, they were less frequently admitted to ICU (9.1% versus 26.3%). This difference was more pronounced when age-matched subgroups were compared: 24.4% of patients without and only 5.0% of patients with antiplatelet drugs required ICU treatment. In the age-matched subgroups we observed also a significant shorter stay in hospital for the patients on antiplatelet drugs (13.9 ± 6.2 versus 18.2 ± 10.2 days). The beneficial effect of the preexisting medication with antiplatelet drugs was also obvious when stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the odds ratio for the need of ICU treatment. The following variables were included as independent variables: SOFA (sepsis-related organ failure assessment) score, plasma level of C-reactive protein, platelet and leukocyte counts (all measured at day of admission), age, gender, and the preexisting medication with antiplatelet drugs. Odds ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval: 0.10–1.00) for all patients and 0.19 (0.04–0.87) for the age-matched subgroup were obtained, indicating a marked reduction in organ failure by antiplatelet drugs [65].

5.2. Patients Admitted to an Intensive Care Unit

In a second study we analysed the data from 615 patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) within 24 hours after arrival in hospital. From these patients 21% had a preexisting medication with aspirin (≤160 mg/d), and 4% were on clopidogrel or a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel. Patients on statins were excluded [33]. Patients were allocated to internal medicine as well as various surgery departments (general surgery, trauma surgery, neurosurgery, and gynaecology). Patients with and without antiplatelet drugs did not only differ in age (median: 72 versus 56 years), but also in the severity of their illness as measured by the APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II score at the day of ICU admission (25 versus 19). Despite these marked differences in age and APACHE II score which are established risk factors of MOF, there was no difference in ICU mortality as clinical end point of the study. Stepwise logistic regression with APACHE II score, age, gender, and use of antiplatelet drugs indicated that in addition to age and APACHE II score the use of antiplatelet drugs had a highly significant impact on mortality. The calculated odds ratios amounted for age 1.04 (1.03–1.06), for APACHE II 1.16 (1.12–1.19), and for antiplatelet drugs 0.19 (0.12–0.33). That means that the prehospital use of antiplatelet drugs would reduce mortality by a factor of about 5 [33].

Figure 1 illustrates the effects of antiplatelet drugs on subgroups of patients [33]. Surprisingly, in patients who were allocated to surgical departments, the preexisting medication with antiplatelet drugs was associated with a slightly better outcome when compared to those patients allocated to internal medicine department. In neurosurgery patients (46 with and 196 without antiplatelet drugs) an odds ratio for mortality of 0.12 (0.04–0.30) was calculated. In contrast, patients allocated to trauma surgery did not show any benefit from antiplatelet drugs (odds ratio = 0.92 (0.06–13.6)) [33]. However, in the subgroup of trauma patients (22 with and 159 without antiplatelet drugs) antiplatelet drugs seemed to exert an enormous benefit as an odds ratio as low as 0.06 (0.01–0.35) was calculated. This was true for patients with multiple trauma (injury severity score >16) as well as for patients with craniocerebral trauma (Figure 1). Even patients with active bleeding including those who needed transfusion or presented intracranial bleeding seemed to profit from the preexisting medication with antiplatelet drugs. Finally there was no marked difference in the beneficial effect of antiplatelet drugs between patients who received medical treatment and those with surgical treatment (Figure 1). Thus bleeding and/or high risk for bleeding seemed not to abolish or reverse the calculated benefit of antiplatelet drugs in the critically ill patients. However, one should consider the data obtained by the stepwise logistic regression analysis in some of the subgroups of patients with some caution as (i) the numbers of patients were sometimes rather low and (ii) patients without antiplatelet drugs were much younger (up to 30 years) when compared to those with such medication. Therefore we reevaluated the subgroups in a cohort of APACHE II score and age-matched patients using 2 × 2 table analysis [33]. Under this condition the beneficial effect of antiplatelet drugs in patients with active bleeding or a high bleeding risk was no longer significant, but the calculated odds ratios for mortality were in most of the subgroups in a range of 0.42 to 0.88. There were only two exceptions: in patients allocated to the trauma surgery department an odds ratio of 3.67 (0.38–42.2) was calculated. In contrast, a significant benefit on outcome was still obtained for neurosurgery patients (odds ratio = 0.32 (0.12–0.84)) [33].

720254.fig.001
Figure 1: The figure summarises the effect of antiplatelet drugs (aspirin or/and clopidogrel) in patients admitted to an ICU as reported by Winning et al. [33]. Odds ratios for ICU mortality with 95% confidence intervals were calculated by stepwise logistic regression with age, gender, APACHE II score, and preexisting medication with antiplatelet drugs as independent variables.

For the present paper we have reevaluated our previously reported data [33] summarised above. We analysed the data of those patients who had a preexisting medication with only low-dose aspirin, and we excluded those patients who had clopidogrel or a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel. As for the entire group of patients with antiplatelet drugs we also found for the “only aspirin” subgroup large differences in age and APACHE II score when compared to patients without antiplatelet drugs. And again, there was no difference in mortality (Table 1). However using stepwise logistic regression analysis with mortality as dependent variable and age, APACHE II score, gender, and preexisting aspirin medication, we found that aspirin reduced the mortality by about 80% as indicated by an odds ratio of 0.20 (Table 2). Thus the calculated benefit of aspirin was in the same range as calculated for the entire group of patients with aspirin and/or clopidogrel as shown in Figure 1 and previously reported [33].

tab1
Table 1: Age, gender, APACHE II score, and mortality in a subgroup of patients with and without an exclusive prehospital aspirin medication. The data were taken from Winning et al. [33].
tab2
Table 2: Effect of aspirin on outcome of critically ill patients characterised in Table 1. Odds ratios for ICU mortality were calculated using data from our recently published study [33]. The model of stepwise logistic regression included age, gender, APACHE II score, and preexisting medication with aspirin as independent variables.
5.3. ICU Patients Presenting Severe Sepsis or Septic Shock

In a third, not yet published study, we analysed the clinical records of 834 patients who were admitted to ICU with severe sepsis or septic shock. About 20% of these patients received low-dose aspirin (Table 3). Exclusion criteria were the administration of other antiplatelet drugs (i.e., clopidogrel) or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen, diclofenac or indomethacin. As shown in Table 3, patients on aspirin were about 4.5 years older and presented a slightly higher APACHE II score at the day of ICU admission. Despite the differences in these both risk factors, ICU mortality was about one third lower in patients receiving aspirin when compared to those without such medication (Table 3).

tab3
Table 3: Age, APACHE II score, and mortality in patients admitted to ICU with severe sepsis or septic shock and with or without aspirin medication during ICU stay.

When calculating the odds ratio for mortality by stepwise logistic regression with age, APACHE II score, and aspirin medication during ICU stay, we found a reduction in ICU mortality by aspirin of about 45% (Table 4).

tab4
Table 4: Effect of ICU aspirin medication on outcome (odds ratio of mortality*) of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. The model of stepwise logistic regression included age, APACHE II score and ICU medication with aspirin as independent variables. *ICU mortality.
5.4. Patients at Risk for Acute Lung Injury/Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

In June 2011 O’Neal et al. [73] published the data of a prospective study on the effects of the prehospital use of statins on the prevalence of severe sepsis and acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS) in critically ill patients. The authors included 575 patients admitted to surgical or medical ICU. Exclusion criteria were admission to trauma or cardiovascular ICU, primary cardiac diagnoses, and age <40 years. From these patients 26% were on prehospital statins. Logistic regression analysis with age, gender, tobacco use, race, APACHE II score, statin use, and aspirin use indicated that patients on statin but not those on aspirin were less likely to have or to develop severe sepsis (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.40–0.96) or ALI/ARDS (odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.36–0.99) during the first four days after ICU admission. Interestingly, the benefit of prehospital statins may be potentiated by prehospital aspirin. Patients with both prehospital statins and aspirin had the lowest rate of severe sepsis or ALI/ARDS when compared to those with statins alone or those without statins [73].

The association of prehospital aspirin therapy and ALI/ARDS was also investigated by Erlich et al. [77] and published in February 2011. The authors evaluated medical records of 161 patients with at least one major risk factor for ALI/ARDS but who did not meet criteria for ALI/ARDS at time of hospitalisation. Seventy-nine (49%) of the patients were on aspirin at hospital admission and 33 (21%) developed ALI/ARDS. Aspirin therapy was associated with a significantly lower rate of ALI/ARDS when compared to patients without aspirin (17.7% versus 28.0%; odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.16–0.84). The authors reported that the benefit of aspirin therapy remained significant after adjusting for various confounding variables [77]. A few months later the same group reported the results of a large multicenter international observational study on the association of prehospital aspirin therapy and ALI/ARDS [78]. Inclusion criteria were again at least on risk factor of ALI (aspiration, pneumonia, sepsis, shock, pancreatitis, high-risk trauma, or high risk surgery) and age >18 years. Patients with elective surgery were excluded. A total of 3855 patients were enrolled in the study. Twenty-five % of them were receiving aspirin at the time of hospitalisation and 6.2% developed ALI/ARDS. Patients with aspirin were significantly older (median and interquartile ranges: 70 (59–81) versus 51 (38–66) years) and had higher APACHE II scores (12 (8–16) versus 9 (5–14)). Univariate analysis indicated a reduced incidence of ALI/ARDS in patients with aspirin (odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.46–0.90). However this association was attenuated after adjusting for the propensity to receive aspirin therapy. An odds ratio (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel pooled odds ratio) of 0.70 (0.48–1.03) was calculated in a stratified analysis based on deciles of the American Society of Anesthesiologists propensity scores [78].

6. Discussion

Animal studies and observational clinical studies reviewed here have provided some evidence that antiplatelet drugs may reduce organ failure and mortality in critically ill patients. In the clinical studies mostly or exclusively aspirin was used as the antiplatelet drug, whereas clopidogrel or GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors as rather specific antiplatelet drugs were predominantly used in animal models [6068]. The benefit of clopidogrel and GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors in animal models and the benefit of low-dose aspirin in the observational clinical studies may indicate that the benefit of aspirin is indeed mediated by its effect on platelets. However, one cannot exclude the possibility that the benefit of antiplatelet drugs, including aspirin, is at least partially due to the underlying atherosclerotic vascular disease. It is well accepted that atherosclerosis is based on a chronic low-grade systemic inflammation as indicated by moderately increased levels of markers of inflammation, that is, cytokines, C-reactive protein, or fibrinogen [7982]. It would be interesting to test the hypothesis that patients with chronic low-grade systemic inflammation have a decreased prevalence of severe sepsis and organ failure.

The use of antiplatelet drugs in critically ill patients seems not to be associated with unfavourable bleeding. A benefit of antiplatelet drugs was also evident in patients with an increased bleeding risk such as neurosurgery patients and not necessarily associated with high blood loss or worse neurological outcome [33]. This observation is in line with the recommendation of perioperative continuation of antiplatelet therapy in patients with high risk of cardio- and cerebrovascular events [8386].

7. Conclusion

The data reviewed in the present paper may indicate that low-dose aspirin, as it is used in patients with cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular diseases, might offer a novel therapeutic option to prevent organ failure. This hypothesis warrants testing in prospective interventional trials.

References

  1. M. Levi, “Platelets in sepsis,” Hematology, vol. 10, supplement 1, pp. 129–131, 2005.
  2. J. L. Vincent, A. Yagushi, and O. Pradier, “Platelet function in sepsis,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 30, supplement 5, pp. S313–S317, 2002. View at Scopus
  3. J. N. Katz, K. P. Kolappa, and R. C. Becker, “Beyond thrombosis: the versatile platelet in critical illness,” Chest, vol. 139, no. 3, pp. 658–668, 2011.
  4. S. Akca, P. Haji-Michael, A. De Mendonça, P. Suter, M. Levi, and J. L. Vincent, “Time course of platelet counts in critically ill patients,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 753–756, 2002. View at Scopus
  5. D. Moreau, J. F. Timsit, A. Vesin et al., “Platelet count decline: an early prognostic marker in critically III patients with prolonged ICU stays,” Chest, vol. 131, no. 6, pp. 1735–1741, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  6. D. M. Vandijck, S. I. Blot, J. J. De Waele, E. A. Hoste, K. H. Vandewoude, and J. M. Decruyenaere, “Thrombocytopenia and outcome in critically ill patients with bloodstream infection,” Heart and Lung, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 21–26, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  7. M. Gawaz, S. Fateh-Moghadam, G. Pilz, H. J. Gurland, and K. Werdan, “Platelet activation and interaction with leucocytes in patients with sepsis or multiple organ failure,” European Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 843–851, 1995. View at Scopus
  8. H. Ogura, T. Kawasaki, H. Tanaka et al., “Activated platelets enhance microparticle formation and platelet-leukocyte interaction in severe trauma and sepsis,” Journal of Trauma, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 801–809, 2001. View at Scopus
  9. S. Russwurm, J. Vickers, A. Meier-Hellmann et al., “Platelet and leukocyte activation correlate with the severity of septic organ dysfunction,” Shock, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 263–268, 2002. View at Scopus
  10. C. L. Bockmeyer, R. A. Claus, U. Budde et al., “Inflammation-associated ADAMTS13 deficiency promotes formation of ultra-large von Willebrand factor,” Haematologica, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 137–140, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  11. R. A. Claus, C. L. Bockmeyer, M. Sossdorf, and W. Lösche, “The balance between von-Willebrand factor and its cleaving protease ADAMTS13: biomarker in systemic inflammation and development of organ failure?” Current Molecular Medicine, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 236–248, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. J. A. K. Hovinga, S. Zeerleder, P. Kessler et al., “ADAMTS-13, von Willebrand factor and related parameters in severe sepsis and septic shock,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 2284–2290, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  13. T. N. Bongers, M. Emonts, M. P. M. De Maat et al., “Reduced ADAMTS13 in children with severe meningococcal sepsis is associated with severity and outcome,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 103, no. 6, pp. 1181–1187, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  14. G. Andonegui, S. M. Kerfoot, K. McNagny, K. V. J. Ebbert, K. D. Patel, and P. Kubes, “Platelets express functional Toll-like receptor-4,” Blood, vol. 106, no. 7, pp. 2417–2423, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  15. G. Zhang, J. Han, E. J. Welch et al., “Lipopolysaccharide stimulates platelet secretion and potentiates platelet aggregation via TLR4/MyD88 and the cGMP-dependent protein kinase pathway,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 182, no. 12, pp. 7997–8004, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  16. G. T. Brown and T. M. McIntyre, “Lipopolysaccharide signaling without a nucleus: kinase cascades stimulate platelet shedding of proinflammatory IL-1beta-rich microparticles,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 186, no. 9, pp. 5489–5496, 2011.
  17. M. Czabanka, C. Peter, E. Martin, and A. Walther, “Microcirculatory endothelial dysfunction during endotoxemia—insights into pathophysiology, pathologic mechanisms and clinical relevance,” Current Vascular Pharmacology, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 266–275, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. D. Secor, F. Li, C. G. Ellis et al., “Impaired microvascular perfusion in sepsis requires activated coagulation and P-selectin-mediated platelet adhesion in capillaries,” Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 1928–1934, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  19. K. Tyml, “Critical role for oxidative stress, platelets, and coagulation in capillary blood flow impairment in sepsis,” Microcirculation, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 152–162, 2011.
  20. C. L. Bockmeyer, P. A. Reuken, T. P. Simon, et al., “ADAMTS13 activity is decreased in a septic porcine model. Significance for glomerular thrombus deposition,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 145–153, 2011.
  21. H. D. Flad and E. Brandt, “Platelet-derived chemokines: pathophysiology and therapeutic aspects,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 67, no. 14, pp. 2363–2386, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  22. A. S. Weyrich and G. A. Zimmerman, “Platelets: signaling cells in the immune continuum,” Trends in Immunology, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 489–495, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  23. S. R. Steinhubl, “Platelets as mediators of inflammation,” Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 115–121, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  24. A. R. L. Gear and D. Camerini, “Platelet chemokines and chemokine receptors: linking hemostasis, inflammation, and host defense,” Microcirculation, vol. 10, no. 3-4, pp. 335–350, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  25. J. W. Semple and J. Freedman, “Platelets and innate immunity,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 499–511, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  26. S. S. Smyth, R. P. Mcever, A. S. Weyrich et al., “Platelet functions beyond hemostasis,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 1759–1766, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  27. E. I. B. Peerschke, W. Yin, and B. Ghebrehiwet, “Platelet mediated complement activation,” Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol. 632, pp. 81–91, 2008. View at Scopus
  28. E. I. Peerschke, W. Yin, and B. Ghebrehiwet, “Complement activation on platelets: implications for vascular inflammation and thrombosis,” Molecular Immunology, vol. 47, no. 13, pp. 2170–2175, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  29. J. Wiesner and A. Vilcinskas, “Antimicrobial peptides: the ancient arm of the human immune system,” Virulence, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 440–464, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  30. L. T. Nguyen, P. H. Kwakman, D. I. Chan, et al., “Exploring platelet chemokine antimicrobial activity: nuclear magnetic resonance backbone dynamics of nap-2 and tc-1,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 2074–2083, 2011.
  31. S. R. Clark, A. C. Ma, S. A. Tavener et al., “Platelet TLR4 activates neutrophil extracellular traps to ensnare bacteria in septic blood,” Nature Medicine, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 463–469, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  32. F. Setzer, V. Oberle, M. Bläss et al., “Platelet-derived microvesicles induce differential gene expression in monocytic cells: a DNA microarray study,” Platelets, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 571–576, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  33. J. Winning, J. Neumann, M. Kohl et al., “Antiplatelet drugs and outcome in mixed admissions to an intensive care unit,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 32–37, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  34. X. Bosch, J. Marrugat, and J. Sanchis, “Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockers during percutaneous coronary intervention and as the initial medical treatment of non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 9, Article ID CD002130, 2010.
  35. M. W. Behan, D. P. Chew, and P. E. Aylward, “The role of antiplatelet therapy in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease,” Current Opinion in Cardiology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 321–328, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  36. T. S. Field and O. R. Benavente, “Current status of antiplatelet agents to prevent stroke,” Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 6–14, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  37. F. Catella-Lawson, M. P. Reilly, S. C. Kapoor et al., “Cyclooxygenase inhibitors and the antiplatelet effects of aspirin,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 345, no. 25, pp. 1809–1817, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  38. R. A. Chaer, J. A. Graham, and L. Mureebe, “Platelet function and pharmacologic inhibition,” Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 261–267, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  39. A. J. Ansara, S. A. Nisly, S. A. Arif, J. M. Koehler, and S. T. Nordmeyer, “Aspirin dosing for the prevention and treatment of ischemic stroke: an indication-specific review of the literature,” Annals of Pharmacotherapy, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 851–862, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  40. J. Herlitz, P. P. Tóth, and J. Næsdal, “Low-dose aspirin therapy for cardiovascular prevention: quantification and consequences of poor compliance or discontinuation,” American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 125–141, 2010.
  41. A. Lanas, “Gastrointestinal bleeding associated with low-dose aspirin use: relevance and management in clinical practice,” Expert Opinion on Drug Safety, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 45–54, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  42. S. Shakib, “Aspirin for primary prevention: do potential benefits outweigh the risks?” Internal Medicine Journal, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 401–407, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  43. A. D. Michelson, “New P2Y12 antagonists,” Current Opinion in Hematology, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 371–377, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  44. M. Cattaneo, “The platelet P2Y receptor for adenosine diphosphate: congenital and drug-induced defects,” Blood, vol. 117, no. 7, pp. 2102–2112, 2011.
  45. P. A. Gurbel, D. J. Kereiakes, and U. S. Tantry, “Ticagrelor for the treatment of arterial thrombosis,” Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, vol. 11, no. 13, pp. 2251–2259, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  46. S. A. Mousa, W. P. Jeske, and J. Fareed, “Prasugrel: a novel platelet ADP P2Y(12) receptor antagonist,” Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 663, pp. 221–228, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  47. A. W. J. Van't Hof and M. Valgimigli, “Defining the role of platelet glycoprotein receptor inhibitors in STEMI: focus on tirofiban,” Drugs, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 85–100, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  48. L. Bolognese, “The emerging role of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in managing high-risk patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes,” Current Medical Research and Opinion, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1217–1226, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  49. H. Horiuchi, “Recent advance in antiplatelet therapy: the mechanisms, evidence and approach to the problems,” Annals of Medicine, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 162–172, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  50. P. M. Ridker, M. Cushman, M. J. Stampfer, R. P. Tracy, and C. H. Hennekens, “Inflammation, aspirin, and the risk of cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy men,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 336, no. 14, pp. 973–979, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  51. S. R. Steinhubl, J. J. Badimon, D. L. Bhatt, J. M. Herbert, and T. Lüscher, “Clinical evidence for anti-inflammatory effects of antiplatelet therapy in patients with atherothrombotic disease,” Vascular Medicine, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 113–122, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  52. J. Graff, S. Harder, O. Wahl, E. H. Scheuermann, and J. Gossmann, “Anti-inflammatory effects of clopidogrel intake in renal transplant patients: effects on platelet-leukocyte interactions, platelet CD40 ligand expression, and proinflammatory biomarkers,” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 468–476, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  53. J. B. Muhlestein, “Effect of antiplatelet therapy on inflammatory markers in atherothrombotic patients,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 71–82, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  54. I. Ikonomidis, F. Andreotti, E. Economou, C. Stefanadis, P. Toutouzas, and P. Nihoyannopoulos, “Increased proinflammatory cytokines in patients with chronic stable angina and their reduction by aspirin,” Circulation, vol. 100, no. 8, pp. 793–798, 1999.
  55. J. R. Fletcher, “Prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors in endotoxin or septic shock—a review,” Advances in Shock Research, vol. 10, pp. 9–14, 1983.
  56. P. S. Rao, D. Cavanagh, and L. W. Gaston, “Endotoxic shock in the primate: effects of aspirin and dipyridamole administration,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 140, no. 8, pp. 914–922, 1981.
  57. U. Schaper, G. Lueddeckens, W. Forster, and D. W. Scheuch, “Inhibition of lipoxygenase (LOX) or of cyclooxygenase (COX) improves survival of rats in endotoxin shock,” Biomedica Biochimica Acta, vol. 47, no. 10-11, pp. S282–S285, 1988.
  58. Y. Ohtaki, H. Shimauchi, T. Yokochi, H. Takada, and Y. Endo, “In vivo platelet response to lipopolysaccharide in mice: proposed method for evaluating new antiplatelet drugs,” Thrombosis Research, vol. 108, no. 5-6, pp. 303–309, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  59. L. Zhao, Y. Ohtaki, K. Yamaguchi et al., “LPS-induced platelet response and rapid shock in mice: contribution of O-antigen region of LPS and involvement of the lectin pathway of the complement system,” Blood, vol. 100, no. 9, pp. 3233–3239, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  60. F. B. Taylor, B. S. Coller, A. C. K. Chang et al., “7e3 f(ab′)2, a monoclonal antibody to the platelet GPIIb/IIIa receptor, protects against microangiopathic hemolytic anemia and microvascular thrombotic renal failure in baboons treated with C4b binding protein and a sublethal infusion of Escherichia coli,” Blood, vol. 89, no. 11, pp. 4078–4084, 1997.
  61. Q. Pu, E. Wiel, D. Corseaux et al., “Beneficial effect of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (AZ-1) on endothelium in Escherichia coli endotoxin-induced shock,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1181–1188, 2001.
  62. A. Walther, M. Czabanka, M. M. Gebhard, and E. Martin, “Glycoprotein IIB/IIIA-inhibition and microcirculatory alterations during experimental endotoxemia—an intravital microscopic study in the rat,” Microcirculation, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 79–88, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  63. V. Evangelista, S. Manarini, G. Dell'Elba et al., “Clopidogrel inhibits platelet-leukocyte adhesion and platelet-dependent leukocyte activation,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 568–577, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  64. V. Evangelista, G. Dell'Elba, N. Martelli, et al., “Anti-inflammatory effects of clopidogrel in the mouse,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 5, supplement 2, p. P-M-283, 2007.
  65. J. Winning, J. Reichel, Y. Eisenhut et al., “Anti-platelet drugs and outcome in severe infection: clinical impact and underlying mechanisms,” Platelets, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 50–57, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  66. M. Seidel, J. Winning, R. A. Claus, M. Bauer, and W. Lösche, “Beneficial effect of clopidogrel in a mouse model of polymicrobial sepsis,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 1030–1031, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  67. S. Hagiwara, H. Iwasaka, A. Hasegawa et al., “Adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonist clopidogrel sulfate attenuates LPS-induced systemic inflammation in a rat model,” Shock, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 289–292, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  68. X. Tu, X. Chen, Y. Xie et al., “Anti-inflammatory renoprotective effect of clopidogrel and irbesartan in chronic renal injury,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 77–83, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  69. K. Schrör, “Aspirin and platelets: the antiplatelet action of aspirin and its role in thrombosis treatment and prophylaxis,” Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 349–356, 1997. View at Scopus
  70. R. F. Storey, “Biology and pharmacology of the platelet P2Y12 receptor,” Current Pharmaceutical Design, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1255–1259, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. S. Christensen, R. W. Thomsen, M. B. Johansen et al., “Preadmission statin use and one-year mortality among patients in intensive care—a cohort study,” Critical Care, vol. 14, no. 2, p. R29, 2010. View at Scopus
  72. I. Kouroumichakis, N. Papanas, S. Proikaki, P. Zarogoulidis, and E. Maltezos, “Statins in prevention and treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock,” European Journal of Internal Medicine, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 125–133, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  73. H. R. O'Neal Jr., T. Koyama, E. A. Koehler, et al., “Prehospital statin and aspirin use and the prevalence of severe sepsis and acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1343–1359, 2011.
  74. S. Janda, A. Young, J. M. FitzGerald, M. Etminan, and J. Swiston, “The effect of statins on mortality from severe infections and sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Critical Care, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 656.e7–656.e22, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  75. G. C. Makris, G. Geroulakos, M. C. Makris, D. P. Mikhailidis, and M. E. Falagas, “The pleiotropic effects of statins and omega-3 fatty acids against sepsis: a new perspective,” Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 809–814, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  76. D. Viasus, C. Garcia-Vidal, F. Gudiol, and J. Carratalà, “Statins for community-acquired pneumonia: current state of the science,” European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 143–152, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  77. J. M. Erlich, D. S. Talmor, R. Cartin-Ceba, and D. J. Kor, “Prehospitalization antiplatelet therapy is associated with a reduced incidence of acute lung injury: a population-based cohort study,” Chest, vol. 139, no. 2, pp. 289–295, 2011.
  78. D. J. Kor, J. Erlich, M. N. Gong, et al., “Association of prehospitalization aspirin therapy and acute lung injury: Results of a multicenter international observational study of at-risk patients,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 39, no. 22, pp. 2393–2400, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  79. G. J. Blake and P. M. Ridker, “Inflammatory bio-markers and cardiovascular risk prediction,” Journal of Internal Medicine, vol. 252, no. 4, pp. 283–294, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. S. Steffens and F. Mach, “Inflammation and atherosclerosis,” Herz, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 741–748, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  81. H. Loppnow, K. Werdan, and M. Buerke, “Vascular cells contribute to atherosclerosis by cytokine- and innate-immunity-related inflammatory mechanisms,” Innate Immunity, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 63–87, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  82. C. I. Vardavas and D. B. Panagiotakos, “The causal relationship between passive smoking and inflammation on the development of cardiovascular disease: a review of the evidence,” Inflammation and Allergy—Drug Targets, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 328–333, 2009. View at Scopus
  83. P. G. Chassot, A. Delabays, and D. R. Spahn, “Perioperative use of anti-platelet drugs,” Best Practice and Research, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 241–256, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. E. Hijazi, “Aspirin does dot increase bleeding and allogeneic blood transfusion in coronary artery surgery,” Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 421–424, 2011.
  85. G. Kotsovolis, G. Komninos, A. Kyrgidid, and D. Papadimitriou, “Preoperative withdrawal of antiplatelet treatment in lower limb vascular patients prior to surgical management under epidural or spinal anaesthesia: an evidence based approach and systematic review,” International Angiology, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 475–481, 2010.
  86. P. F. Dineen, R. J. Curtin, and J. A. Harty, “A review of the use of common antiplatelet agents in orthopaedic practice,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery B, vol. 92, no. 9, pp. 1186–1191, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus