Search

Introduction: Thromboembolic accidents and haemorrhage are the main complications observed during long-term follow-up of mechanical heart valve patients. Several suggestions for improving anticoagulation quality have been made, including international normalised ratio (INR) self-monitoring., Objectives: We report the preliminary results of a single-centre, open, randomised study (scheduled population of 200 patients), which compares monthly laboratory monitoring (group A) versus weekly self-monitoring of INR (group B). The primary aim is INR stability improvement within the target range, and the secondary aim is adverse events reduction., Patients and Methods: Between May 2004 and June 2005, 67 patients with an average age of 56.6 years (+/-9.6), were enrolled in the study (group A: 34 patients, group B: 33 patients). The mean follow-up was 47 weeks (+/-11.5). The two groups differed only in the sex ratio (44.1 and 21.2% of women in groups A and B respectively, p=0.0459). Mechanical heart valves were aortic in 73% of patients, mitral in 13.5%, and multiple in 13.5%. Sixty-five patients (97%) were treated with fluindione, the others with acenocoumarol. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the self- and laboratory-monitored INR was 0.75., Results: The time spent in the INR target range (group A: 53+/-19%, group B: 57+/--19%, p=0.45) and the time spent in the INR therapeutic range, between 2 and 4.5, (group A: 86+/-14%, group B: 91+/-7%, p=0.07) are longer in group B, but not significantly so. For patients outside the range, the absolute mean deviation of INR from the target or therapeutic range (range standardized between 0 and 100) is lower for the self-monitoring group (41.1+/-39.3 and 11.27+/-11.2) than for the control group (62.4+/-72.6 and 39.2+/-52.8). This difference is significant (p=0.0004 and p=0.0005). Eighteen adverse events were reported: 17 haemorrhages, 13 in group A (9 mild, 4 serious) and four in group B (all mild), and one sudden death in group B, two days after the patient's discharge. No thromboembolic events were reported. Six patients (8.8 %), 3 in each group, dropped out of the study., Conclusion: This first study evaluating INR self-monitoring in France shows that this method leads to better stability of the INR within the target range. On the basis of these preliminary data, this appears to be related to a decrease in serious haemorrhages (11.8% serious haemorrhage cases in group A versus 0% in group B, p=0.06, NS).

Background/objectives: Expert oral anticoagulation management is the key to good outcomes and is performed variably in different health care systems throughout the world. We set out to assess the quality of anticoagulation management in five countries in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prophylaxis in chronic non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), and to compare the anticoagulation management practices in these countries., Methods and Results: This was a retrospective, multi-centre cohort study in the United States, Canada, France, Italy, and Spain. About 1,511 patients were randomly recruited from representative practices (routine medical care (RMC) in the US, Canada, and France; anticoagulation clinics in Italy and Spain) and data pertaining to their oral anticoagulation care were abstracted from their medical records. The predominant anticoagulant in use was warfarin in the US, Canada, and Italy; acenocoumarol in Spain; and fluindione in France. Documentation of care was poor in the US, Canada, and France, countries where RMC was studied. Percent INRs or time-in-therapeutic range was greater in the two anticoagulation clinic samples compared with the RMC samples., Conclusion: Oral anticoagulation care varies considerably from country to country. Findings suggest that anticoagulation clinic care (ACC) may provide better outcomes as assessed by international normalized ratio (INR) time-in-range. Physicians tend to under treat more than over treat. Finally, documentation of care is often inadequate. Condensed Abstract Oral anticoagulation management (routine medical care or anticoagulation clinic care) was retrospectively assessed in 5 countries using a uniform, structured assessment tool. Major management differences were detected, especially between anticoagulation clinic care and routine care. Documentation was often a problem in the latter setting. Less time in therapeutic INR range was noted in routine medical care. Findings suggest that anticoagulation clinic care may provide better outcomes as assessed by international normalized ratio (INR) time-in-range. Physicians tend to under treat more than over treat. Finally, documentation of care is often inadequate.