ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2014
A 1-year drug utilization evaluation of protamine in hospitalized patients to identify possible future roles of heparin and low molecular weight heparin reversal agents.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A single coronary artery with a fistula draining into the left ventricle: a pediatric case description.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- External Trigger Free Charge Switchable Cationic Ligands in the Design of Safe and Effective Universal Heparin Antidote.Advanced healthcare materials · 2024Article
- Targeting heparin and heparan sulfate protein interactions.Organic & biomolecular chemistry · 2017Review
- The Toxicokinetic Profile of Dex40-GTMAC3-a Novel Polysaccharide Candidate for Reversal of Unfractionated Heparin.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2016Article
- Nonclinical evaluation of novel cationically modified polysaccharide antidotes for unfractionated heparin.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite widespread use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), protamine sulfate remains the only reversal agent for UFH that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration within the US. Availability of new reversal agents for approved anticoagulants and those in development may improve patient safety and care. Delparantag (PMX-60056) is a novel small molecule that shows ability to neutralize the anticoagulation effects of UFH and LMWH in animals and humans. This study examined the 1-year utilization of protamine within an acute care hospital in order to determine the need for a novel reversing agent like delparantag. All patients having documented protamine administration within a 1-year period were included. Pharmacy automated dispensing machines and computerized medication management systems were queried for all doses of protamine withdrawn, billed for, or dispensed. Scanned medical records were reviewed and protamine and anticoagulant information was abstracted. Primary procedural group categorizations for protamine patients were coronary artery bypass graft, cardiac valve surgeries, abdominal aortic aneurysm and other open abdominal surgeries, fistula placement, non-cardiac vascular, cardiac catheter and electrophysiology lab, and "other." Average doses of protamine administered were 439, 423, 126, 26, 46, 36, and 35 mg in these groups, respectively. Four major bleeds and one serious adverse event occurred over the year period. Protamine is used in a wide array of procedures. Evaluating protamine's current use may be beneficial in identifying roles for future UFH and LMWH reversal agent use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.