Why the study?
Does a novel noninvasive system using (111)In-labeled platelets and miniaturized gamma detectors accurately quantify dynamic thrombus formation and antithrombotic efficacy in a porcine model of carotid artery injury?
Does a novel noninvasive system using (111)In-labeled platelets and miniaturized gamma detectors accurately quantify dynamic thrombus formation and antithrombotic efficacy in a porcine model of carotid artery injury?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A novel in vivo monitoring system using (111)In-labeled platelets and miniaturized gamma detectors successfully quantified dynamic thrombus formation and differentiated the efficacy of various antithrombotic agents in a porcine model.
Current methods for monitoring thrombosis and thrombus growth are invasive and provide only single-time-point data. Animal models rely mainly on flow changes as a surrogate of thrombus formation. Our aim was to validate a unique potentially noninvasive system to detect and quantify dynamic thrombus formation in vivo by using a porcine model of carotid artery injury. Thrombus growth was monitored by deposition of autologous (111)In-labeled platelet activity over the injured artery by use of miniaturized gamma detectors and Doppler blood flow. Counts were recorded at 2-minute intervals for 2 hours. The technique was validated by comparing standard antithrombotic agents against controls. Platelet recruitment was detected before significant change in flow. Thrombus formation, calculated as the area under the curve (platelets x minutes x 10(6)), was greatest for control animals (11.7+/-1.28), followed by animals treated with aspirin (6.13+/-0.91, P<0.05), heparin (2.45+/-0.34, P<0.05), and hirudin (0.2+/-0.01, P<0.01 compared with heparin). The rate of platelet deposition was assessed as the slope of the curve in the first 30 minutes (platelets x 10(6) per minute) for the following treatment groups of animals: control, 3.53+/-0.34; aspirin, 1.67+/-0. 34 (P<0.01); heparin, 1.55+/-0.3 (P<0.01); and hirudin, 0.25+/-0.03 (P<0.001). There was no statistical difference between heparin and aspirin treatments. Change in flow was assessed as reduction from baseline: control, >99+/-0.34%; aspirin, 39+/-9.1%; heparin, 36+/-12. 5%; and hirudin, 17+/-5.4%. There was no statistical difference between the aspirin- and heparin-treated groups. Morphometric analysis revealed >99+/-0.63% occlusion of the luminal area with thrombus for the control group, 43+/-14.3% for the aspirin-treated group, 30+/-5.6% for the heparin-treated group, and <10+/-1.8% for the hirudin-treated group. Assessment of platelet-thrombus formation with this technique was more sensitive than change in flow in determining antithrombotic efficacy, and thrombus formation was detected earlier. This study validates a new quantitative, sensitive, potentially noninvasive, portable, in vivo monitoring of dynamic thrombus growth, which appears applicable to phase II studies in humans.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zaman et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: