Key result
Low-molecular-weight heparin and unfractionated heparin show no difference in aortic endothelial binding.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Endothelial binding equivalence does not distinguish LMWH from UFH; leaves open differential effects on clinical efficacy or safety.
The ability of a low-molecular-weight heparin to bind in vivo to the aortic endothelium in rabbits, compared with that of unfractionated extractive sodium heparin (UHEP), was investigated. For this purpose a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWHEP) fraction (CY 216 A, 4,000-5,000 daltons) and an extractive UHEP (average 17,000 daltons) were labeled with 99m Tc and injected (0.2, 0.6, and 1.2 mg/kg) intravenously in groups of 6 rabbits. The binding to endothelium was then measured by counting the radioactivity of samples of abdominal aorta. Both heparins bound to endothelium with a fast, saturable, and reversible binding. No significant difference in the total bound radioactivity was found between the two heparins, suggesting that the investigated LMWHEP retains the ability to bind to the endothelium, contributing to its athrombogenic properties.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gensini et al. (2009) studied this question. Low-molecular-weight heparin (CY 216 A) vs. Unfractionated extractive sodium heparin (UHEP) was evaluated on Binding to endothelium (measured by counting radioactivity of samples of abdominal aorta). Low-molecular-weight heparin and unfractionated heparin both bound to aortic endothelium with no significant difference in total bound radioactivity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: