| Title |
Differences in clotting parameters between species for preclinical large animal studies of cardiovascular devices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Artificial Organs, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10047-017-1003-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Toshihide Mizuno, Tomonori Tsukiya, Yoshiaki Takewa, Eisuke Tatsumi |
| Abstract |
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, EXTEM(®)) and partial thromboplastin phospholipid (intrinsic clotting screening test, IINTEM(®)). 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 (EXTEM(®): 77-87 mm, IINTEM(®): 66-78 mm) was significantly higher than that of humans (EXTEM(®): 59.1 ± 6.0 mm, IINTEM(®): 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 33% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 50% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,451,991
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Artificial Organs
#198
of 247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,681
of 331,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Artificial Organs
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 247 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.