Literature DB >> 23143204

Is home monitoring of international normalised ratio safer than clinic-based monitoring?

Alex Cumberworth1, Nigel Tapiwa Mabvuure, Marc-James Hallam, Sandip Hindocha.   

Abstract

A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol, to answer the question: 'In patients taking warfarin, is home self-monitoring of international normalized ratio (INR) safer than clinic-based testing in reducing bleeding, thrombotic events and death?' Altogether, 268 papers were found using the reported search. Five papers represented the highest level of evidence to answer the clinical question (four systematic reviews with meta-analysis and one meta-analysis). The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The principal outcomes of interest were death, major haemorrhage, major thromboembolism, and time (or percentage time) spent within the therapeutic range, compared between self-monitoring/self-management and conventional management. Self-monitoring/self-management was associated with a significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality of 26-42%. All meta-analyses reported on major thromboembolism, finding significant reductions in risk of ~50%. One meta-analysis found a 35% reduction in the risk of major haemorrhage, with the other four studies finding no significant difference. Only one study found self-monitoring/self-management to be associated with a significantly greater proportion of time within range, with another finding no significant difference in either the percentage of therapeutic results or in the time within range. The remaining two could not combine data for meta-analysis owing to methodological heterogeneity. We conclude that self-monitoring/self-management appears to be safer than conventional management. It is associated with consistently lower rates of thromboembolism and may also be associated with reduced risk of bleeding and death. This supports the updated guidance from the American College of Chest Physicians, recommending self-management of INR for patients who are both competent and motivated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23143204      PMCID: PMC3548535          DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivs454

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg        ISSN: 1569-9285


  7 in total

1.  Towards evidence-based medicine in cardiothoracic surgery: best BETS.

Authors:  Joel Dunning; Brian Prendergast; Kevin Mackway-Jones
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2003-12

Review 2.  Evidence-based management of anticoagulant therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Anne Holbrook; Sam Schulman; Daniel M Witt; Per Olav Vandvik; Jason Fish; Michael J Kovacs; Peter J Svensson; David L Veenstra; Mark Crowther; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 3.  Self-monitoring and self-management of oral anticoagulation.

Authors:  Josep M Garcia-Alamino; Alison M Ward; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Rafael Perera; Clare Bankhead; David Fitzmaurice; Carl J Heneghan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-04-14

Review 4.  Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data.

Authors:  Carl Heneghan; Alison Ward; Rafael Perera; Clare Bankhead; Alice Fuller; Richard Stevens; Kairen Bradford; Sally Tyndel; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Jack Ansell; Rebecca Beyth; Artur Bernardo; Thomas Decker Christensen; M E Cromheecke; Robert G Edson; David Fitzmaurice; Alain P A Gadisseur; Josep M Garcia-Alamino; Chris Gardiner; J Michael Hasenkam; Alan Jacobson; Scott Kaatz; Farhad Kamali; Tayyaba Irfan Khan; Eve Knight; Heinrich Körtke; Marcel Levi; David Matchar; Bárbara Menéndez-Jándula; Ivo Rakovac; Christian Schaefer; Andrea Siebenhofer; Juan Carlos Souto; Rubina Sunderji; Kenneth Gin; Karen Shalansky; Heinz Völler; Otto Wagner; Armin Zittermann
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 5.  Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  C Heneghan; P Alonso-Coello; J M Garcia-Alamino; R Perera; E Meats; P Glasziou
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-02-04       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Meta-analysis: effect of patient self-testing and self-management of long-term anticoagulation on major clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Hanna E Bloomfield; Ange Krause; Nancy Greer; Brent C Taylor; Roderick MacDonald; Indulis Rutks; Preetham Reddy; Timothy J Wilt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Safety and effectiveness of point-of-care monitoring devices in patients on oral anticoagulant therapy: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Philip S Wells; Allan Brown; James Jaffey; Lynda McGahan; Man-Chiu Poon; Karen Cimon
Journal:  Open Med       Date:  2007-10-16
  7 in total
  4 in total

Review 1.  The future of inpatient anticoagulation management.

Authors:  Allison E Burnett; Toby C Trujillo
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 2.  Novel Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: Monitoring, Reversal and Perioperative Management.

Authors:  Fadi Shamoun; Hiba Obeid; Harish Ramakrishna
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  The clinical impact of different coagulometers on patient outcomes.

Authors:  Jan Leendert Pouwel Brouwer; Hugo Stoevelaar; Christoph Sucker
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2014-06-04       Impact factor: 3.845

Review 4.  Characterizing patient-oriented tools that could be packaged with guidelines to promote self-management and guideline adoption: a meta-review.

Authors:  Robin W M Vernooij; Melina Willson; Anna R Gagliardi
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 7.327

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.