Stanislaw Vander Zwaag, Imre Kukel, Asen Petrov, Jens Fassl
{"title":"Comparison of Three Mathematical Models of the Pharmacokinetics of Heparin to Guide the Use of Protamine in a Large Simulated Cohort of Patients.","authors":"Stanislaw Vander Zwaag, Imre Kukel, Asen Petrov, Jens Fassl","doi":"10.1177/10892532251332464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> In cardiac surgery, protamine is used to reverse the effects of heparin after separation from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Excess of protamine has been demonstrated to cause platelet dysfunction and coagulopathy. A protamin-to-heparin ratio of less than 1:1 is endorsed by the European guidelines. Pharmacokinetic models of heparin decay have been proposed to allow for individualised dosing rather than fixed ratios. The objective of this study is to compare three such models in a large cohort of simulated patients. <b>Methods:</b> The doses of protamine were calculated using the models proposed by Meesters et al., Miles et al., and in the PRODOSE trial. We employed data from the VitalDB database to calculate the doses of heparin and randomly generated time intervals in-between. We tested two scenarios: with an initial dose and heparin added to the priming solution, and where additional heparin was administered over the course of the CPB. <b>Results:</b> We simulated 1166 cases with a mean interval between heparin and protamine administration of 90 ± 22 minutes in the first and 140 ± 28 minutes in the second scenario. The PRODOSE formula produced the lowest protamine-to-heparin ratios, followed by Meesters' formula in the first scenario (0.68:1 vs 0.72:1, <i>P</i> < .001) and the Miles' formula in the second scenario (0.55:1 vs 0.62:1, <i>P</i> < .001). <b>Conclusion:</b> The doses calculated with pharmacokinetic models exhibited discrepancies of up to 13.6%. While confirmation of complete reversal with alternative methods is necessary, the models facilitate a more individualised dose selection than the fixed ratios proposed in the literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":46500,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia","volume":" ","pages":"10892532251332464"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892532251332464","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In cardiac surgery, protamine is used to reverse the effects of heparin after separation from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Excess of protamine has been demonstrated to cause platelet dysfunction and coagulopathy. A protamin-to-heparin ratio of less than 1:1 is endorsed by the European guidelines. Pharmacokinetic models of heparin decay have been proposed to allow for individualised dosing rather than fixed ratios. The objective of this study is to compare three such models in a large cohort of simulated patients. Methods: The doses of protamine were calculated using the models proposed by Meesters et al., Miles et al., and in the PRODOSE trial. We employed data from the VitalDB database to calculate the doses of heparin and randomly generated time intervals in-between. We tested two scenarios: with an initial dose and heparin added to the priming solution, and where additional heparin was administered over the course of the CPB. Results: We simulated 1166 cases with a mean interval between heparin and protamine administration of 90 ± 22 minutes in the first and 140 ± 28 minutes in the second scenario. The PRODOSE formula produced the lowest protamine-to-heparin ratios, followed by Meesters' formula in the first scenario (0.68:1 vs 0.72:1, P < .001) and the Miles' formula in the second scenario (0.55:1 vs 0.62:1, P < .001). Conclusion: The doses calculated with pharmacokinetic models exhibited discrepancies of up to 13.6%. While confirmation of complete reversal with alternative methods is necessary, the models facilitate a more individualised dose selection than the fixed ratios proposed in the literature.
背景:在心脏手术中,鱼精蛋白被用于逆转体外循环(CPB)分离后肝素的作用。过量的鱼精蛋白已被证明会导致血小板功能障碍和凝血功能障碍。欧洲指南认可的蛋白与肝素的比例小于1:1。肝素衰变的药代动力学模型已经提出,允许个体化剂量,而不是固定的比例。本研究的目的是在模拟患者的大队列中比较三种这样的模型。方法:采用Meesters et al., Miles et al.和PRODOSE试验提出的模型计算鱼精蛋白的剂量。我们使用来自VitalDB数据库的数据来计算肝素的剂量和随机产生的时间间隔。我们测试了两种情况:初始剂量和肝素添加到启动溶液中,以及在CPB过程中使用额外的肝素。结果:我们模拟了1166例患者,第一种情况下肝素和鱼精蛋白的平均间隔时间为90±22分钟,第二种情况下为140±28分钟。PRODOSE配方产生的蛋白蛋白与肝素比例最低,其次是Meesters配方(0.68:1 vs 0.72:1, P < 0.001)和Miles配方(0.55:1 vs 0.62:1, P < 0.001)。结论:用药代动力学模型计算的剂量差异达13.6%。虽然用替代方法确认完全逆转是必要的,但与文献中提出的固定比例相比,这些模型有助于更个性化的剂量选择。