Aprotinin and the protease-activated receptor 1 thrombin receptor: antithrombosis, inflammation, and stroke reduction.

Cardiopulmonary bypass, although remaining an indispensable asset in cardiac surgery, especially in more complex and repeat operations, is associated with significant thrombin generation in the bypass circuit, leading to the activation of platelets, the coagulation system, an inflammatory response, and perioperative stroke. Recent clinical studies and meta-analyses of clinical trials in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery have confirmed that aprotinin not only reduces transfusion requirements in cardiac surgery but also confers significant protection against platelet dysfunction, activation of the systemic inflammatory response, and perioperative stroke when administered at the full (or "Hammersmith") dose. This article reviews research from several independent groups to propose a novel mechanism through which the antithrombotic, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective mechanism might be mediated, via protection of the high-affinity thrombin receptor protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR1).

The systemic inflammatory response syndrome and cardiopulmonary bypass.

Cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) provokes a systemic inflammatory response. This is mainly triggered by contact activation of blood by artificial surfaces of the extracorporeal circuit. Although often remaining sub-clinical and resolving promptly at the end of CPB, in its most extreme form this inflammatory response may be associated with the development of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) that can often lead to major organ dysfunction (MODs) and death. Here, we review the pathophysiology behind the development of this "whole body" inflammatory response and some of the methods currently used to minimise it.

Clinical inhibition of the seven-transmembrane thrombin receptor (PAR1) by intravenous aprotinin during cardiothoracic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Protease-activated receptor-1 (PAR1) is the principal thrombin receptor in the vasculature, and antagonists against this receptor are in preclinical trials. Aprotinin, already approved for clinical use to reduce transfusion requirements in cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) surgery, has been shown to inhibit PAR1 activation in vitro. Here, we exploit CPB as a model for thrombin generation in humans to examine whether aprotinin can inhibit platelet PAR1 activation clinically. METHODS AND RESULTS: PAR1 expression and function on platelets was examined in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients randomized into 2 groups: (1) those receiving saline infusion during CPB (n=17) and (2) those receiving aprotinin (2x10(6) kallikrein inhibitor units [KIU] in pump prime, 2x10(6) KIU loading dose, followed by 0.5x10(6) KIU/h [n=13]). Platelets in the saline group showed loss of PAR1-specific function at 2 hours after CPB, but this was preserved in the aprotinin group (P<0.001). These effects were most likely targeted at PAR1 receptor cleavage, because (1) the level of thrombin generated during CPB did not vary significantly between groups, (2) expression of SPAN12, which detects only uncleaved PAR1 receptors, was preserved in the aprotinin but not the placebo group (P<0.05), and (3) supporting evidence in vitro showed reduced thrombin-induced PAR1 cleavage (P<0.001) and platelet aggregation (P<0.001) in the presence of aprotinin. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that platelet PAR1 activation by thrombin can be inhibited by aprotinin. Our results extend the clinical mechanism of action of aprotinin and provide the first proof of principle that PAR1 can be inhibited clinically. This has implications beyond cardiac surgery for the development of therapeutic PAR1 blockade.

Distinct yet complementary mechanisms of heparin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors on platelet activation and aggregation: implications for restenosis during percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of unfractionated heparin (UFH) versus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in combination with glycoprotein (Gp) IIb/IIIa blockers on platelet activation and aggregation. METHODS: Washed platelets were stimulated with thrombin in the presence or absence of UFH (monoparin), LMWH (enoxaparin), and a Gp IIb/IIIa blocker (abciximab, eptifibatide, or tirofiban). RESULTS: Although Gp IIb/IIIa antagonists blocked the final common pathway of thrombin induced platelet aggregation, UFH and LMWH were better at blocking upstream platelet activation. UFH was significantly more effective than LMWH at inhibiting P selectin expression (p = 0.001) and platelet derived growth factor release from thrombin activated platelets (p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: UFH and LMWH exert complementary effects to Gp IIb/IIIa blockers by inhibiting afferent pathways of platelet activation. Coadministration of heparin with Gp IIb/IIIa blockers provides improved protection against persistent platelet activation, thereby improving outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention. Judging from these data, UFH may be more effective in this regard than LMWH, at least in vitro. The use of LMWH in preference to UFH during percutaneous coronary intervention, although initially attractive, may inadequately protect against platelet activation despite the presence of Gp IIb/IIIa blockers.