Why the study?
Does intravenous low molecular weight heparin (LHN-1) prevent thrombosis with fewer hemorrhagic effects compared to conventional heparin in animal models?
Does intravenous low molecular weight heparin (LHN-1) prevent thrombosis with fewer hemorrhagic effects compared to conventional heparin in animal models?
In animal models, low molecular weight heparin (LHN-1) prevents thrombosis as effectively as conventional heparin but requires a higher dose and shows a similar correlation between antithrombotic and haemorrhagic effects.
LHN-1 merits further preclinical testing; leaves open any clinical advantage over heparin in humans.
The antithrombotic effects after intravenous administration of a low molecular weight heparin (LHN-1) and conventional heparin were compared in a rabbit model of experimental thrombosis, where thrombus formation was induced by a combination of endothelial damage and stasis. Both compounds were able to prevent thrombosis completely. However, LHN-1 was significantly less potent than conventional heparin, the ratio between doses with the same antithrombotic effect being 2.4:1 on a weight basis. Bleeding times after administration of LHN-1 and conventional heparin were determined by tail transsection in anaesthetized rats and by template bleeding in the ear of conscious pigs. Given intravenously at a dose ratio of 2.4:1 (w/w), LHN-1 affected APTT less than conventional heparin, whereas the effects on haemostasis were not significantly different. In conclusion, it was found that after intravenous administration LHN-1 prevented experimental thrombosis as effectively as conventional heparin. However, the correlation between antithrombotic and haemorrhagic effects of LHN-1 was the same as that of conventional heparin. The corresponding relation in man remains to be determined.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Diness et al. (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: