Literature DB >> 15630104

Comparing self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy with clinic management: a randomized trial.

Bárbara Menéndez-Jándula1, Juan Carlos Souto, Arturo Oliver, Isabel Montserrat, Mireia Quintana, Ignasi Gich, Xavier Bonfill, Jordi Fontcuberta.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Control of oral anticoagulant treatment has been reported to be suboptimal, but previous studies suggest that patient self-management improves control.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of control and the clinical outcomes of oral anticoagulant treatment in self-managed patients versus patients following conventional management.
DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial.
SETTING: University-affiliated hospital in Spain. PATIENTS: 737 patients with indications for anticoagulant treatment. INTERVENTION: The self-management group (n = 368) received simple instructions for using a portable coagulometer weekly and self-adjusting treatment dose. The conventional management group (n = 369) received usual care in an anticoagulation clinic (monthly measurement and control of international normalized ratio [INR], managed by hematologists). MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of INR values within the target range and major related complications.
RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 11.8 months (range, 0.3 to 16.9 months). The unadjusted percentages of in-range INRs were 58.6% in the self-management group and 55.6% in the conventional management group (difference, 3.0 percentage points [95% CI, 0.4 to 5.4 percentage points]). Twenty-seven patients (7.3%) in the conventional management group and 8 (2.2%) in the self-management group had major complications related to anticoagulant treatment. The unadjusted risk difference for major complications between groups was 5.1 percentage points (exact 95% CI, 1.7 to 8.5 percentage points). Fewer patients had minor hemorrhages in the self-management group (14.9%) than in the conventional management group (36.4%). Fifteen patients (4.1%) in the conventional management group and 6 (1.6%) in the self-management group died (unadjusted risk difference, 2.5 percentage points [exact 95% CI, 0.0 to 5.1 percentage points]). LIMITATIONS: The trial was performed at only 1 center and was not blinded. The dropout rate in the intervention group was 21%.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional management by an anticoagulation clinic, self-management of oral anticoagulant treatment achieved a similar level of control. Of note, major complications and minor hemorrhages were less common in the self-management group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15630104     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-1-200501040-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  43 in total

1.  Descriptive analysis of the process and quality of oral anticoagulation management in real-life practice in patients with chronic non-valvular atrial fibrillation: the international study of anticoagulation management (ISAM).

Authors:  Jack Ansell; Jennifer Hollowell; Vittorio Pengo; Fernando Martinez-Brotons; Jaime Caro; Ludovic Drouet
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 2.  Anticoagulation: where we are and where we need to go.

Authors:  Geoffrey D Barnes; James B Froehlich
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2008-07-18       Impact factor: 2.300

3.  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

4.  Self management of oral anticoagulation: randomised trial.

Authors:  D A Fitzmaurice; E T Murray; D McCahon; R Holder; J P Raftery; S Hussain; H Sandhar; F D R Hobbs
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-10-10

5.  American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: optimal management of anticoagulation therapy.

Authors:  Daniel M Witt; Robby Nieuwlaat; Nathan P Clark; Jack Ansell; Anne Holbrook; Jane Skov; Nadine Shehab; Juliet Mock; Tarra Myers; Francesco Dentali; Mark A Crowther; Arnav Agarwal; Meha Bhatt; Rasha Khatib; John J Riva; Yuan Zhang; Gordon Guyatt
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2018-11-27

6.  EDUC'AVK: reduction of oral anticoagulant-related adverse events after patient education: a prospective multicenter open randomized study.

Authors:  Gilles Pernod; José Labarère; Jacqueline Yver; Bernadette Satger; Benoit Allenet; Touffek Berremili; Michèle Fontaine; Guy Franco; Jean Luc Bosson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-06-20       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Quality of oral anticoagulant therapy in patients who perform self management: warfarin versus phenprocoumon.

Authors:  Christina Friis Jensen; Thomas Decker Christensen; Marianne Maegaard; John Michael Hasenkam
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2008-09-25       Impact factor: 2.300

8.  What are the basic self-monitoring components for cardiovascular risk management?

Authors:  Alison M Ward; Carl Heneghan; Rafael Perera; Dan Lasserson; David Nunan; David Mant; Paul Glasziou
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 9.  Best strategies for patient education about anticoagulation with warfarin: a systematic review.

Authors:  James L Wofford; Megan D Wells; Sonal Singh
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-02-14       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: does it work outside trial conditions?

Authors:  C Gardiner; I Longair; M A Pescott; H Erwin; J Hills; S J Machin; H Cohen
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.