Key result
Combined administration of a prostacyclin analogue and protease inhibitor (FUT-175) is ideal anticoagulation therapy for left ventricular assist devices.
Why the study?
Does combined administration of a prostacyclin analogue and protease inhibitor improve blood coagulation and fibrinolysis in subjects using a left ventricular assist device compared to other anticoagulants?
Does combined administration of a prostacyclin analogue and protease inhibitor improve blood coagulation and fibrinolysis in subjects using a left ventricular assist device compared to other anticoagulants?
Combined administration of a prostacyclin analogue and protease inhibitor (FUT-175) or FUT-175 alone provides adequate anticoagulation for left ventricular assist devices.
May support combined prostacyclin analogue and FUT-175 for LVAD anticoagulation; leaves open need for randomized trials versus current regimens.
A multicomparative study to establish adequate anticoagulation therapy for left ventricular assist devices was undertaken by administrating various anticoagulants: heparin, a prostacyclin analogue combined with a protease inhibitor; thromboxane A2 synthetase inhibitor; or a protease inhibitor alone. Our investigation suggested that combined administration of prostacyclin analogue and protease inhibitor (FUT-175) is ideal anticoagulation therapy from the point of blood coagulation and fibrinolysis. Currently, however, sole administration of FUT-175 is adequate anticoagulation therapy during clinical use of left ventricular assist devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takahama et al. (1989) studied Left ventricular assist device use. Prostacyclin analogue combined with a protease inhibitor (FUT-175) vs. Heparin, thromboxane A2 synthetase inhibitor, or protease inhibitor alone was evaluated on Blood coagulation and fibrinolysis. Combined administration of a prostacyclin analogue and protease inhibitor (FUT-175) is ideal anticoagulation therapy for left ventricular assist devices.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: