PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 6970019

Monitoring heparin anticoagulation and its neutralization.

D R Jobes·A J Schwartz·N Ellison·R Andrews·R A Ruffini·J J Ruffini
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Heparin anticoagulation and its neutralization were monitored by three different techniques: a manual protamine titration, an automated activated coagulation time, and an automated protamine titration. All three techniques provided satisfactory information. The decision of which to use must be based on other considerations such as available manpower and cost of equipment. The effect of using the automated protamine titration test on heparin and protamine requirements, and on blood loss measured intraoperatively after bypass and in overnight chest bottle drainage in two groups of comparable patients undergoing coronary artery bypass operation was studied. The heparin requirements were similar (24,420 +/- 584 units, control group; 23,550 +/- 849 units, treatment group), but the protamine requirements were markedly different (429 +/- 14.7 mg, control; 258 +/- 10.4 mg, treatment; p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in intraoperative blood loss or overnight chest bottle drainage.

Explore related subjects

AutoanalysisBlood Coagulation TestsChildCoronary Artery BypassHeart Defects, CongenitalHemorrhageHeparinHumansMiddle AgedProtaminesWhole Blood Coagulation TimeComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D R Jobes, A J Schwartz, N Ellison, R Andrews, R A Ruffini, J J Ruffini. 1981. Monitoring heparin anticoagulation and its neutralization.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-4975(10)61536-6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Use of the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer for rapid and reproducible molecular typing of Streptococcus pneumoniae.

Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis is an economic and fast technique for molecular typing but has the drawback of difficulties in accurately sizing DNA fragments and comparing banding patterns on agarose gels. We aimed to improve RFLP for typing of the important human pathogen Streptococcus pneumoniae and to compare the results with the commonly used typing techniques of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and multilocus sequence typing. We designed primers to amplify a noncoding region adjacent to the pneumolysin gene. The PCR product was digested separately with six restriction endonucleases, and the DNA fragments were analyzed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer for accurate sizing. The combined RFLP results for all enzymes allowed us to assign each of the 47 clinical isolates of S. pneumoniae tested to one of 33 RFLP types. RFLP analyzed using the bioanalyzer allowed discrimination between strains similar to that obtained by the more commonly used techniques of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, which discriminated between 34 types, and multilocus sequence typing, which discriminated between 35 types, but more quickly and with less expense. RFLP of a noncoding region using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer could be a useful addition to the molecular typing techniques in current use for S. pneumoniae, especially as a first screen of a local population.

Autoanalysis↗
PubMed2007

A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System.

We compared the performance of the ThinPrep (TP) Imaging System (TIS) with manual reading of TP slides (TPM) and with manual reading of the paired conventional Pap smear (PS) in terms of sensitivity for and positive predictive value (PPV) of high-grade disease and productivity. The study consisted of 11,416 routine PS and paired TP slides as well as 103 confirmed abnormal TP slides. In terms of sensitivity for the detection of biopsy-confirmed high-grade disease, overall there was no statistically significant difference between TIS-screened TP (TPI) and TPM (81.1% vs. 86.8%). For the routine cases, TPI was significantly more sensitive than PS (73.4% vs. 57.8%). In terms of PPVs for the cytologic prediction of high-grade disease, there was no statistically, significant difference among TPI, TPM, and PS (75.6%, 73.9%, and 84.6%). For cytologic reports of possible high-grade disease, the PPVs were equivalent for TPI (45.0%) and TPM (37.0%) and there was no significant difference in PPVs between TPI and PS (61.3%). For TP slides, TIS screening showed a 27% productivity gain when compared with manual screening and a 54% productivity gain when compared with manual screening of PS slides. Use of TIS showed productivity benefits when compared with TPM and both productivity and sensitivity benefits over use of PS.

Autoanalysis↗