Recommendations for patients undertaking self management of oral anticoagulation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fitzmaurice DA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1121512 | biostudies-literature | 2001 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Recommendations for patients undertaking self management of oral anticoagulation.
Fitzmaurice D A DA Machin S J SJ
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20011001 7319
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe introduction of point-of-care devices for the management of patients on oral anticoagulation allows self-testing by the patient at home. Patients who self-test can either adjust their medication according to a pre-determined dose-INR (international normalized ratio) schedule (self-management), or they can call a clinic to be told the appropriate dose adjustment (self-monitoring). Increasing evidence suggests self-testing of oral anticoagulant therapy is equal to or better than standard monitoring. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2010.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects on thrombotic events, major haemorrhages, and all-cause mortality of self-monitoring or self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy compared to standard monitoring.Search methodsFor this review update, we re-ran the searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2015, Issue 6, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to June week 4 2015), Embase (Ovid, 1980 to 2015 week 27) on 1 July 2015. We checked bibliographies and contacted manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. We did not apply any language restrictions .Selection criteriaOutcomes analysed were thromboembolic events, mortality, major haemorrhage, minor haemorrhage, tests in therapeutic range, frequency of testing, and feasibility of self-monitoring and self-management.Data collection and analysisReview authors independently extracted data and we used a fixed-effect model with the Mantzel-Haenzel method to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and Peto's method to verify the results for uncommon outcomes. We examined heterogeneity amongst studies with the Chi(2) and I(2) statistics and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of evidence.Main resultsWe identified 28 randomised trials including 8950 participants (newly incorporated in this update: 10 trials including 4227 participants). The overall quality of the evidence was generally low to moderate. Pooled estimates showed a reduction in thromboembolic events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; participants = 7594; studies = 18; moderate quality of evidence). Both, trials of self-management or self-monitoring showed reductions in thromboembolic events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70; participants = 3497; studies = 11) and (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97; participants = 4097; studies = 7), respectively; the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. No reduction in all-cause mortality was found (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; participants = 6358; studies = 11; moderate quality of evidence). While self-management caused a reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84; participants = 3058; studies = 8); self-monitoring did not (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.15; participants = 3300; studies = 3); the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. In 20 trials (8018 participants) self-monitoring or self-management did not reduce major haemorrhage (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.12; moderate quality of evidence). There was no significant difference found for minor haemorrhage (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41; participants = 5365; studies = 13). The quality of evidence was graded as low because of serious risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 82%).Authors' conclusionsParticipants who self-monitor or self-manage can improve the quality of their oral anticoagulation therapy. Thromboembolic events were reduced, for both those self-monitoring or self-managing oral anticoagulation therapy. A reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in trials of self-management but not in self-monitoring, with no effects on major haemorrhage.
| S-EPMC8078378 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients on oral anticoagulation (OAC), who are referred for coronary artery stenting account for about 5% of the whole population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although relatively small, this patient subset poses particular problems owing to the need to balance carefully the risk of bleeding against the risk of stent thrombosis and thromboembolism. Triple therapy (TT) of OAC, aspirin and clopidogrel appears as the most effective for prevention of stent thrombosis and thromboembolism. However, an increased incidence of major bleeding is to be expected during follow-up. Therefore, TT should be prolonged for as short a time as possible, and implantation of drug-eluting stents avoided. Frequent monitoring of international normalized ratio is also warranted, and the intensity of OAC should be targeted at the lower limit of the therapeutic range. Gastric protection should also be considered for all patients on medium- to long-term TT, owing to the observed highest incidence of bleeding at the gastrointestinal site. Peri-procedural management is cumbersome, and a substantial incidence of in-hospital major bleeding has been reported. Since this latter is more related to procedural variables than to TT itself, choice of radial access, avoidance of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and preference for not interrupting effective OAC should be implemented. However, the evidence on which the recommendations for managing this patient subset are based is limited and of relative poor quality. While waiting for the results of ongoing, large prospective studies that are aimed at conclusively determining optimal medium- to long-term antithrombotic treatment, the official recommendations issued by the Working Group on Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology on the management of patients on OAC undergoing PCI with stenting should followed.
| S-EPMC2999026 | biostudies-other
Project description:The skills of patients on oral anticoagulants are critical for achieving good outcomes with this treatment. Self-management, or the capacity of patients to control their INR level and adjust their treatment, is an effective strategy of treatment. Capacity of patients to self manage is determined by a range of factors. The identification of these factors would improve the design of self management programmes and in turn increase the number of patients able to self-manage. The objective of our study is to identify those factors that determine the ability of patients on oral anticoagulant therapy to achieve self-management of their treatment.This will be a three year quasi- experimental prospective study with a control group. 333 patients on anticoagulant therapy from five health centres of the Basque Health Service are to be followed up for a period of six months each after the intervention, to assess their ability to self-test and self-manage. The intervention will consist of a patient training programme involving the provision of information and practical training concerning their condition and its treatment, as well as how to use a portable blood coagulation monitoring device and adjust their anticoagulant dose.The ease-of-use of this technique lead us to believe that self-management is feasible and will represent an innovative advance that should have a substantial impact on the quality of life of this patients and their families as well as on the health care provision systems.Osakidetza Protocol Record ISCIII-11/02285, Oral anticoagulation and self-management, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01878539.
| S-EPMC3765739 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelf-management may be an option to monitor oral anticoagulant therapy in health systems, but before recommending it, we need to assess patients' ability to take on this task. The purpose of the study was to describe patients' ability to self-manage and associated factors.MethodsThis was a 3-year prospective quasi-experimental study with a control group. Overall, 333 patients on anticoagulant therapy from seven primary care health centres of the Basque Health Service were included in the intervention group and followed up for 6 months after the intervention, assessing their ability to self-test and self-manage. The intervention consisted of a patient training programme, providing detailed information on their condition and its treatment, and practical training in how to use a portable blood coagulation monitor and adjust their anticoagulant dose. Comparisons were made with a control group (333 patients receiving OAT under usual care from the same seven health centres). Outcome variables were ability to self-manage, quality of the outcome (in terms of time in therapeutic range), and quality of life in the intervention group, and general patient characteristics (age and sex), clinical variables (reason for OAT, INR range), and quality of the outcome (in terms of percentage of INR measurements in range and complications) in both groups.ResultsOverall, 26.13 % of patients invited to participate in the intervention agreed. Of these, 99 % successfully learned to self-manage their OAT. Just 4.2 % did not complete the follow-up, in all cases for reasons unrelated to self-management, and 4.5 % required additional learning support. Outcomes were better than under usual care in terms of percentage of INR measurements in range (12 %), rate of complications (4 %) and quality of life (9.2 %).LimitationsPatients were only followed-up period for 6 months and the study was conducted in a single health organization. Though patients eligible to participate were selected randomly, they were not randomly allocated to the groups. This is a potential source of selection bias. Data needed to calculate in-range time were not collected from controls; rather the results for the self-management group were compared with external data from other studies.ConclusionsAlmost all participants achieved competency in self-management, with no differences by age, sex, concurrent illnesses, polypharmacy or educational level. The greatest barrier to self-management was the attitude of patients themselves and those around them. Self-management in primary care is a good alternative to usual care, patients having longer times in therapeutic range and fewer complications, and improving their quality of life. Remote management is a good support tool.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01878539.
| S-EPMC5022157 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is effective at preventing and treating thromboses and thromboembolism in patients with normal renal function. We aimed to research the impact of severe renal failure (RF) on patient outcome and to determine the potential benefit of caring for these patients in a specialized coagulation service (CS). A total of 1516 usual medical care patients and 756 CS-managed patients of the thrombEVAL multicenter (21 centers), prospective, cohort study (NCT01809015) were analyzed in a 3-year follow-up. Patients with RF (serum creatinine >3 mg/dL, no renal replacement therapy) were compared to patients without RF in usual care and a CS. The fluctuations in the international normalized ratios were significantly lower in CS-managed patients, and regardless of treatment in usual care or a CS, the time in therapeutic range was significantly lower in RF patients. Cox regression-adjusted hazard ratios for long-term outcome (1.5, 95% CI: 1.22-1.83, p < 0.001), death (1.62, CI: 1.27-2.08, p < 0.001), and hospitalization (1.21, CI: 1.02-1.44, p = 0.032) were significantly higher in RF patients in usual care. Furthermore, there was a trend of more bleeding events in RF patients. CS-treated patients had significantly lower adjusted hazard ratios for death (0.24, CI: 0.14-0.39, p < 0.001), hospitalizations (0.41, CI: 0.34-0.5, p < 0.001), clinically relevant bleeding (0.29, CI: 0.18-0.47, p < 0.001), and major bleeding (0.33, CI: 0.18-0.59, p < 0.001). Thus, patients who required oral anticoagulation therapy benefitted significantly from being managed in a specialized coagulation service, regardless of their renal function.
| S-EPMC7141283 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy is associated with increased periprocedural risks after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Patterns of anticoagulation management involving non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have not been characterized.HypothesisAnticoagulation strategies and outcomes differ by anticoagulant type in patients undergoing CIED implantation.MethodsUsing the nationwide Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation, we assessed how atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing CIED implantation were cared for and their subsequent outcomes. Outcomes were compared by oral anticoagulant therapy (none, warfarin, or NOAC) as well as by anticoagulation interruption status.ResultsAmong 9129 AF patients, 416 (5%) underwent CIED implantation during a median follow-up of 30 months (interquartile range, 24-36). Of these, 60 (14%) had implantation on a NOAC. Relative to warfarin therapy, those on a NOAC were younger (70.5 years [range, 65-77.5 years] vs 77 years [range, 70-82 years]), had less valvular heart disease (15.0% vs 31.3%), higher creatinine clearance (67.3 [range, 59.7-99.0] vs 65.8 [range, 50.0-91.6]), were more likely to have persistent AF (26.7% vs 22.9%), and use concomitant aspirin (51.7% vs 35.2%). OAC therapy was commonly interrupted for CIED in 64% (n = 183 of 284) of warfarin patients and 65% (n = 39 of 60) of NOAC patients. Many interrupted patients received intravenous bridging anticoagulation: 33/183 (18%) interrupted warfarin and 4/39 (10%) interrupted NOAC patients. Thirty-day periprocedure bleeding and stroke adverse events were infrequent.ConclusionsManagement of anticoagulation among AF patients undergoing CIED implantation is highly variable, with OAC being interrupted in more than half of both warfarin- and NOAC-treated patients. Bleeding and stroke events were infrequent in both warfarin and NOAC-treated patients.
| S-EPMC5638096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Warfarin has had a thin margin of benefit over risk for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with ESRD because of higher bleeding risks and complications of therapy. The successful use of warfarin has been dependent on the selection of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at relatively high risk of stroke and systemic embolism and lower risks of bleeding over the course of therapy. Without such selection strategies, broad use of warfarin has not proven to be beneficial to the broad population of patients with ESRD and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. In a recent meta-analysis of use of warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and ESRD, warfarin had no effect on the risks of stroke (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.82; P=0.65) or mortality (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.13; P=0.60) but was associated with increased risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.56; P<0.01). In pivotal trials, novel oral anticoagulants were generally at least equal to warfarin for efficacy and safety in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and mild to moderate renal impairment. Clinical data for ESRD are limited, because pivotal trials excluded such patients. Given the very high risk of stroke and systemic embolism and the early evidence of acceptable safety profiles of novel oral anticoagulants, we think that patients with ESRD should be considered for treatment with chronic anticoagulation provided that there is an acceptable bleeding profile. Apixaban is currently indicated in ESRD for this application and may be preferable to warfarin given the body of evidence for warfarin and its difficulty of use and attendant adverse events.
| S-EPMC5108189 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundGuidelines recommend performing atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation without interruption of a direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and to administer unfractionated heparin (UFH) for an activated clotting time (ACT) ≥300 seconds, by analogy with vitamin K antagonist (VKA). Nevertheless, pharmacological differences between DOACs and VKA, especially regarding ACT sensitivity and UFH response, prevent extrapolation from VKA to DOACs.HypothesisThe level of anticoagulation at the time of the procedure in uninterrupted DOAC-treated patients is unpredictable and would complicate intraprocedural UFH administration and monitoring.MethodsThis prospective study included interrupted DOAC-treated patients requiring AF ablation. Preprocedural DOAC concentration ([DOAC]), intraprocedural UFH administration, and ACT values were recorded. A cohort of DOAC-treated patients requiring flutter catheter ablation was considered to illustrate [DOAC] without DOAC interruption.ResultsForty-eight patients underwent AF and 14 patients underwent flutter ablation, respectively. In uninterrupted DOAC-treated patients, [DOAC] ranged from ≤30 to 466 ng/mL. When DOAC were interrupted, from 54 to 218 hours, [DOAC] were minimal (maximum: 36 ng/mL), preventing DOAC-ACT interference. Anyway, ACT values were poorly correlated with UFH doses (R 2 = 0.2256).ConclusionsOur data showed that uninterrupted DOAC therapy resulted in an unpredictable and highly variable initial level of anticoagulation before catheter ablation. Moreover, even with DOAC interruption preventing interference between DOAC, UFH, and ACT, intraprocedural UFH monitoring was complex. Altogether, our exploratory results call into question the appropriateness of transposing UFH dose protocols, as well as the relevance of ACT monitoring in uninterrupted DOAC-treated patients.
| S-EPMC6489798 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: Evaluation and improvement of the management of patients with atrial fibrillation in treatment with oral anticoagulants from primary health care. (2) Methods: prospective quasi-experimental study, conducted on 385 patients assisted with Atrial Fibrillation (AF) at the Las Fuentes Norte Health Center, before and after the implementation of actions to improve oral anticoagulants management from October 2015 to July 2017. (3) Results: The ACO-ZAR I study revealed that the population with AF presents a global prevalence of 1.7%, an indication of oral anticoagulants of 92.1%, undertreatment of 24%, suboptimal control of vitamin K antagonists of 43%, use of antiaggregant as primary prevention of 13.42%, and primary health care monitoring of 34%. The implementation of activities aimed at improving the management of oral anticoagulants in the ACO-ZAR II study achieves a reduction in undertreatment up to 16%, in the use of antiaggregant up to 9%, and in suboptimal control up to 30%, as well as an increase in control from primary health care up to 69.2% and of the penetrance of direct oral anticoagulants up to 28%. (4) Conclusions: In conclusion, the application of activities aimed at optimizing the management of oral anticoagulants in health center patients allowed the improvement of risk assessment and registration, undertreatment, use of antiaggregant, suboptimal control of vitamin K antagonists, control by primary health care center, and the penetrance of direct oral anticoagulants.
| S-EPMC9180454 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Patient self-monitoring (PSM) of oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) can improve anticoagulant control, but poor uptake and high dropout rates have prompted suggestions that PSM is suitable for only a minority of patients in the UK. AIMS: To determine whether PSM could be a viable alternative to regular hospital anticoagulant clinic attendance, if offered from the start of treatment. METHODS: 318 consecutive patients referred, for the first time, to an anticoagulation clinic were assessed for eligibility using established criteria. Patients electing for PSM attended training and, following successful assessment, performed a capillary blood INR every two weeks or more frequently if directed to do so by the anticoagulation clinic. Primary outcome measures were uptake of PSM and the percentage time in target therapeutic INR range (TIR) compared to patients electing for routine clinic care. RESULTS: Of 318 patients referred for OAT, 188 were eligible for PSM. 84 (26%) elected to self-monitor, of whom 72 (23%) remained self-monitoring or had completed their course of treatment at the end of the audit. Self-monitoring patients had significantly better anticoagulant control than those receiving routine hospital anticoagulation clinic care (TIR 71% vs 60%, p = 0.003) and significantly less time outside critical limits, ie, INR <1.5 or >5.0 (0.45% vs 2.04%, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Patients offered PSM from the start of treatment show increased uptake compared to previous UK studies and a level of oral anticoagulation control comparable to that reported in previous clinical trials.
| S-EPMC2629005 | biostudies-other