Inhibition of factor IXa by the pegnivacogin system during cardiopulmonary bypass: a potential substitute for heparin. A study in baboons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Heparin and protamine are standard for anticoagulation and reversal for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The REGADO biosciences protocol 1 (REG1) anticoagulant system, consisting of the Factor IXa (FIXa)-inhibitor pegnivacogin and its reversal agent (anivamersen), has been studied in patients undergoing coronary catheterization and in CPB in sheep and pigs. Prior to first human use in CPB, we wanted to test the safety and efficacy of REG1 in a primate model. METHODS: Fourteen baboons undergoing 2 h of CPB followed by 1 h of reperfusion were studied. Three received heparin/protamine and 11 received 1 of 2 doses of pegnivacogin followed by anivamersen. Thrombin-generating capacity was tested in additional in vitro experiments. RESULTS: Targeted drug levels and near-complete FIXa inhibition were achieved. Bypass was run uneventfully in all animals without any clotting in the circuit and bleeding was minimal in the two groups. However, in contrast to heparin-treated baboons, those receiving pegnivacogin/anivamersen displayed thrombi in the bypass cannulae upon cannulation and kidney cortical infarcts. Inter-species comparisons revealed that in the presence of high levels of FIXa inhibition, tissue factor-mediated thrombin generation in baboons was much higher than that in other species. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the limitations of the baboon model for assessing factor-specific coagulation inhibitors during CPB. The justification for Phase 1 human studies using REG1 for CPB is unclear.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".