Why the study?
Does nafamostat mesilate prevent bradykinin generation compared to heparin during LDL apheresis in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia?
Does nafamostat mesilate prevent bradykinin generation compared to heparin during LDL apheresis in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia?
Nafamostat mesilate suppresses bradykinin generation during LDL apheresis compared to heparin, suggesting it is a safer anticoagulant choice for patients concurrently taking ACE inhibitors.
May support nafamostat mesilate over heparin in LDL apheresis with ACE inhibitors; leaves open confirmation in controlled outcome trials.
Dextran-sulfate (DS) cellulose used for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis seems to be a weak activator of the contact phase of the intrinsic coagulation pathway because the surface of this substance has negative charges. Heparin, a commonly used anticoagulant, has no effect on this process whereas the process is inhibited by a newly developed anticoagulant, nafamostat mesilate (NM). The effects on bradykinin generation were compared between heparin and NM. Five patients with severe hypercholesterolemia were treated with LDL apheresis using either heparin or NM on a different day. During apheresis with heparin, factor XII, high molecular weight kininogen, and prekallikrein were markedly decreased by passing through the DS column. A distinct generation of bradykinin was observed by passing plasma through the DS column, and this led to the rise of bradykinin levels from 12 +/- 5 (mean +/- SE) to 72 +/- 14 pg/ml after treatment of 1,000 ml of plasma. NM suppressed almost completely the rise of bradykinin levels. Although blood pressure was apt to decrease during apheresis with heparin, there was no significant difference in blood pressure between heparin and NM. Since an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor may lead to a marked rise in blood levels of bradykinin by suppressing its degradation, the use of NM is recommended for apheresis in patients taking this drug.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kojima et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: