4.0 Article

Differences in clotting parameters between species for preclinical large animal studies of cardiovascular devices

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL ORGANS
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 138-141

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10047-017-1003-4

关键词

Clotting; Animals; Thromboelastography; Medical devices; Preclinical study

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [JP17K10745]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17K10745] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several species of domestic animals are used in preclinical studies evaluating the safety and feasibility of medical devices; however, the relevance of animal models to human health is often not clear. The purpose of this study was to compare the clotting parameters of animal models to determine which animals most adequately mimic human clotting parameters. The clotting parameters of the different species were assessed in whole blood by in vitro thromboelastography using the clotting activators, such as tissue factor (extrinsic clotting screening test, EXTEMA (R)) and partial thromboplastin phospholipid (intrinsic clotting screening test, IINTEMA (R)). The measurements were performed using normal blood samples from humans (n = 13), calves (n = 18), goats (n = 56) and pigs (n = 8). Extrinsic clotting time (CT) and the intrinsic CT were significantly prolonged in calves compared to humans (249.9 +/- 91.3 and 376.4 +/- 124.4 s vs. 63.5 +/- 11.8 and 192.5 +/- 29.0 s, respectively, p < 0.01). The maximum clot firmness (MCF) in domestic animals (EXTEMA (R): 77-87 mm, IINTEMA (R): 66-78 mm) was significantly higher than that of humans (EXTEMA (R): 59.1 +/- 6.0 mm, IINTEMA (R): 58.8 +/- 1.5 mm, p < 0.01), and calves and goats exhibited longer time to MCF (MCF-t) than did humans and pigs (p < 0.01). Our results show that there are relevant differences in the four species' extrinsic and intrinsic clotting parameters. These cross-comparisons indicate that it is necessary to clarify characteristics of clotting properties in preclinical animal studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据