Linked Life Data

3729612

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/3729612

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
1
pubmed:dateCreated
1986-8-6
pubmed:abstractText
Controversy exists as to whether intraaortic (IA) administration of protamine sulfate has less adverse effects than the intravenous (IV) route. The effect of protamine on contractility is not well established. Therefore, 9 dogs underwent chronic instrumentation to monitor aortic pressure (AP), left ventricular (LV) pressure, central venous pressure, cardiac index (CI), heart rate, stroke volume index (SVI), systemic vascular resistance index, and LV volume. The end-systolic LV pressure-volume relationship was used as a load-independent measure of contractility. Each dog was administered IV and IA protamine on separate occasions after pretreatment with heparin. Studies were performed with and without anesthesia. In the awake studies, analysis of variance showed greater decreases in mean AP (p less than .03), CI (p less than .05), and SVI (p less than .02) with IA protamine infusion. In the anesthetized animals, there were no significant differences between IA and IV administration of protamine. Protamine did not decrease contractility in any group. We conclude that IA administration of protamine offers no advantage over IV administration in the dog. Protamine does not decrease contractility when given by either route.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
AIM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jul
pubmed:issn
0003-4975
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
42
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
22-6
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1986
pubmed:articleTitle
Comparison of the cardiovascular effects of intravenous and intraaortic protamine in the conscious and anesthetized dog.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study, Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.