Literature DB >> 10823258

A prospective controlled trial comparing weekly self-testing and self-dosing with the standard management of patients on stable oral anticoagulation.

H H Watzke1, E Forberg, G Svolba, E Jimenez-Boj, B Krinninger.   

Abstract

Oral anticoagulant therapy requires frequent laboratory controls of its intensity to assure therapeutic efficacy and to prevent potentially life threatening adverse events. It is generally assumed, that increasing the frequency of testing would lead to a better control of anticoagulation. We tested this hypothesis in a prospective controlled trial comparing weekly self-testing and self-dosing (self management) with the standard-management of these patients in an anticoagulation clinic. Only patients with stable anticoagulation were included into the study. We recorded 2733 weekly determinations of the intensity of anticoagulation (INR) in 49 patients on self-testing and self-dosing and 539 determinations of the INR in 53 patients on standard-management. Two intensities of anticoagulation were used in each group: a target INR of 3.5 for patients with artificial heart valves (target range: 2.5-4.5) and a target INR 2.5 (target range: 2.0-3.0) for patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The deviation from the target INR, the fraction of INR determinations within the preset therapeutic range and the difference between the target INR and the actually achieved mean INR were the three major endpoints of the study. The mean deviation from the target INR was smaller in the groups of patients on self-management compared to the patients on standard-management. Individual deviations were significantly (p <0.0001) dependent on the type of management in interaction with the treatment intensity in a general linear model. Patients on weekly self-testing and self-dosing had more INR values within the therapeutic range than patients on standard-management (86.2% vs. 80.1% at INR range 2.5-4.5; 82.2 vs. 68.9 at INR range 2.0-3.0). The achieved mean INR was almost identical with the target INR in the patients on self-management but was significantly (p <0.005) below the target INR in the high intensity anticoagulation group on standard-management (target INR:3.5; achieved mean INR: 3.19; CI 0.95: 3.05-3.34). Our data show, that weekly self-testing and self-dosing leads to a better control of anticoagulation than standard treatment in an anticoagulation clinic.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10823258

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thromb Haemost        ISSN: 0340-6245            Impact factor:   5.249


  18 in total

Review 1.  Anticoagulation in patients with thromboembolic disease.

Authors:  R C Tait
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 9.139

Review 2.  Home international normalized ratio monitoring: where evidence-based medicine is exemplified in the Medicare coverage process.

Authors:  Mitchell I Burken; John J Whyte
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.300

3.  Reorganisation of an anticoagulation clinic using a telemedicine system: description of the model and preliminary results.

Authors:  Sophie Testa; Adriano Alatri; Oriana Paoletti; Giampietro Morstabilini; Maria Anunzia Medagliani; Nadia Denti; Emanuela Martellenghi
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.397

4.  An evaluation of patient self-testing competency of prothrombin time for managing anticoagulation: pre-randomization results of VA Cooperative Study #481--The Home INR Study (THINRS).

Authors:  Rowena J Dolor; R Lynne Ruybalid; Lauren Uyeda; Robert G Edson; Ciaran Phibbs; Julia E Vertrees; Mei-Chiung Shih; Alan K Jacobson; David B Matchar
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.300

5.  Effects of anticoagulation provider continuity on time in therapeutic range for warfarin patients.

Authors:  Martin A Bishop; Michael B Streiff
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.300

6.  The Bad Oeynhausen concept of INR self-management.

Authors:  Heinrich Koertke; Armin Zittermann; Stefanie Mommertz; Mahmoud El-Arousy; Jens Litmathe; Reiner Koerfer
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.300

7.  Self-management of oral anticoagulation in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (SMAAF study).

Authors:  H Völler; J Glatz; U Taborski; A Bernardo; C Dovifat; K Heidinger
Journal:  Z Kardiol       Date:  2005-03

Review 8.  Do population studies confirm the benefit of oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation demonstrated in clinical trials?

Authors:  Rik Willems; Derek V Exner
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 9.  Home monitoring of anticoagulation.

Authors:  Julie Hambleton
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2003 Aug-Oct       Impact factor: 2.300

10.  Direct-to-patient expert system and home INR monitoring improves control of oral anticoagulation.

Authors:  Susan I O'Shea; Murat O Arcasoy; Gregory Samsa; Sandra E Cummings; Elizabeth H Thames; Richard S Surwit; Thomas L Ortel
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2007-07-08       Impact factor: 2.300

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.