Cargando…

The Clinical Impact of Different Coagulometers on Patient Outcomes

INTRODUCTION: Long-term anticoagulation therapy using vitamin K antagonists (VKA) is used in millions of patients worldwide to reduce the risk of thrombotic or thromboembolic events. Control and monitoring of VKA therapy is improved by the regular self-measurement of international normalized ratio (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brouwer, Jan Leendert Pouwel, Stoevelaar, Hugo, Sucker, Christoph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4082646/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24895179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0124-x
_version_ 1782324279262576640
author Brouwer, Jan Leendert Pouwel
Stoevelaar, Hugo
Sucker, Christoph
author_facet Brouwer, Jan Leendert Pouwel
Stoevelaar, Hugo
Sucker, Christoph
author_sort Brouwer, Jan Leendert Pouwel
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Long-term anticoagulation therapy using vitamin K antagonists (VKA) is used in millions of patients worldwide to reduce the risk of thrombotic or thromboembolic events. Control and monitoring of VKA therapy is improved by the regular self-measurement of international normalized ratio (INR) using a home monitoring device. This retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients in the Netherlands seeks to determine whether the choice of INR monitor could have a clinical impact on patient outcomes. METHODS: The National Thrombosis Service provides medical supervision, training and support to anticoagulant patients eligible for home-monitoring of INR in the Netherlands. Two INR monitors (CoaguChek XS and INRatio2) have been distributed at random to patients since June 2011, and patient self-testing data (INR measurements and other clinical parameters) have been recorded to measure and improve treatment outcomes. The data have been retrospectively analyzed to determine any effect of the choice of monitor. Univariate and multivariate statistical tests are used to assess any differences between groups in terms of efficacy and safety parameters. RESULTS: Data from 4,326 patients were collated, and 156,507 INR values were included in the analysis. Over half the patients (54.3%) were being treated for atrial fibrillation, and 77.6% were prescribed acenocoumarol. There were few differences between the patient populations using the two different monitors. Anticoagulant control overall was good, with high percentage of time (87.9%) in the appropriate INR range and low incidence of excessively high or low INR values (0.085/month). Minor clinical events related to safety were low (0.78 per patient-year) and showed few differences between monitors. Mortality rates were similar [hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65–1.70]. CONCLUSION: Self-testing data from a large cohort of patients in the Netherlands suggest that there is no clinically relevant effect of the choice of coagulation monitor (CoaguChek XS or INRatio2) on the time in therapeutic range (TTR), minor or fatal outcomes of long-term anticoagulation management. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0124-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4082646
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40826462014-07-10 The Clinical Impact of Different Coagulometers on Patient Outcomes Brouwer, Jan Leendert Pouwel Stoevelaar, Hugo Sucker, Christoph Adv Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: Long-term anticoagulation therapy using vitamin K antagonists (VKA) is used in millions of patients worldwide to reduce the risk of thrombotic or thromboembolic events. Control and monitoring of VKA therapy is improved by the regular self-measurement of international normalized ratio (INR) using a home monitoring device. This retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients in the Netherlands seeks to determine whether the choice of INR monitor could have a clinical impact on patient outcomes. METHODS: The National Thrombosis Service provides medical supervision, training and support to anticoagulant patients eligible for home-monitoring of INR in the Netherlands. Two INR monitors (CoaguChek XS and INRatio2) have been distributed at random to patients since June 2011, and patient self-testing data (INR measurements and other clinical parameters) have been recorded to measure and improve treatment outcomes. The data have been retrospectively analyzed to determine any effect of the choice of monitor. Univariate and multivariate statistical tests are used to assess any differences between groups in terms of efficacy and safety parameters. RESULTS: Data from 4,326 patients were collated, and 156,507 INR values were included in the analysis. Over half the patients (54.3%) were being treated for atrial fibrillation, and 77.6% were prescribed acenocoumarol. There were few differences between the patient populations using the two different monitors. Anticoagulant control overall was good, with high percentage of time (87.9%) in the appropriate INR range and low incidence of excessively high or low INR values (0.085/month). Minor clinical events related to safety were low (0.78 per patient-year) and showed few differences between monitors. Mortality rates were similar [hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65–1.70]. CONCLUSION: Self-testing data from a large cohort of patients in the Netherlands suggest that there is no clinically relevant effect of the choice of coagulation monitor (CoaguChek XS or INRatio2) on the time in therapeutic range (TTR), minor or fatal outcomes of long-term anticoagulation management. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0124-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Healthcare 2014-06-04 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4082646/ /pubmed/24895179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0124-x Text en © The Author(s) 2014 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Brouwer, Jan Leendert Pouwel
Stoevelaar, Hugo
Sucker, Christoph
The Clinical Impact of Different Coagulometers on Patient Outcomes
title The Clinical Impact of Different Coagulometers on Patient Outcomes
title_full The Clinical Impact of Different Coagulometers on Patient Outcomes
title_fullStr The Clinical Impact of Different Coagulometers on Patient Outcomes
title_full_unstemmed The Clinical Impact of Different Coagulometers on Patient Outcomes
title_short The Clinical Impact of Different Coagulometers on Patient Outcomes
title_sort clinical impact of different coagulometers on patient outcomes
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4082646/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24895179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0124-x
work_keys_str_mv AT brouwerjanleendertpouwel theclinicalimpactofdifferentcoagulometersonpatientoutcomes
AT stoevelaarhugo theclinicalimpactofdifferentcoagulometersonpatientoutcomes
AT suckerchristoph theclinicalimpactofdifferentcoagulometersonpatientoutcomes
AT brouwerjanleendertpouwel clinicalimpactofdifferentcoagulometersonpatientoutcomes
AT stoevelaarhugo clinicalimpactofdifferentcoagulometersonpatientoutcomes
AT suckerchristoph clinicalimpactofdifferentcoagulometersonpatientoutcomes