We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Observational Study
Impact of point-of-care international normalized ratio monitoring on quality of treatment with vitamin K antagonists in non-self-monitoring patients: a cohort study.
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis : JTH 2016 April
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring by healthcare professionals could eliminate the need for venous blood sampling in non-self-monitoring (NSM) patients on vitamin K antagonists (VKA). However, few studies have investigated the impact of POC INR monitoring on the quality of treatment in these patients and real-world data on this issue are lacking.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the safety, efficacy and quality of anticoagulant control during POC INR monitoring as compared with laboratory INR monitoring in NSM patients.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the anticoagulation clinic of the Star-Medical Diagnostic Center (Rotterdam, the Netherlands). Patients who received treatment with VKA between 29 May 2012 and 29 May 2014 were eligible. Percentage of time in therapeutic range (TTR) and incidence rates of major clinical events (all-cause mortality, hospitalization, major bleeding and ischemic stroke) were compared for the year before and year after introduction of POC monitoring. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for major clinical events between exposure groups.
RESULTS: In total, 1973 patients during the 1-year laboratory-monitoring observation period and 1959 patients during the 1-year POC-monitoring observation period were included. Median TTR was significantly lower during POC monitoring (77.9%; 95% CI, 67.2-87.4) than during laboratory INR monitoring (81.0%; 95% CI, 71.1-90.5). Adjusted hazard ratios for major clinical events were all around unity.
CONCLUSIONS: Although associated with lower TTR, POC INR monitoring is a safe and effective alternative to laboratory INR monitoring in NSM patients on VKA.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the safety, efficacy and quality of anticoagulant control during POC INR monitoring as compared with laboratory INR monitoring in NSM patients.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the anticoagulation clinic of the Star-Medical Diagnostic Center (Rotterdam, the Netherlands). Patients who received treatment with VKA between 29 May 2012 and 29 May 2014 were eligible. Percentage of time in therapeutic range (TTR) and incidence rates of major clinical events (all-cause mortality, hospitalization, major bleeding and ischemic stroke) were compared for the year before and year after introduction of POC monitoring. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for major clinical events between exposure groups.
RESULTS: In total, 1973 patients during the 1-year laboratory-monitoring observation period and 1959 patients during the 1-year POC-monitoring observation period were included. Median TTR was significantly lower during POC monitoring (77.9%; 95% CI, 67.2-87.4) than during laboratory INR monitoring (81.0%; 95% CI, 71.1-90.5). Adjusted hazard ratios for major clinical events were all around unity.
CONCLUSIONS: Although associated with lower TTR, POC INR monitoring is a safe and effective alternative to laboratory INR monitoring in NSM patients on VKA.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app