Key result
Monitoring low-intensity warfarin therapy with a sensitive thromboplastin was comparable to a standard thromboplastin for therapeutic INR time and bleeding events.
Why the study?
Does monitoring with a sensitive thromboplastin improve anticoagulation control or safety compared to a standard thromboplastin in patients on low-intensity warfarin therapy?
RCT (n=84)
Blinded
Randomized
Does monitoring with a sensitive thromboplastin improve anticoagulation control or safety compared to a standard thromboplastin in patients on low-intensity warfarin therapy?
Monitoring low-intensity warfarin therapy with a standard thromboplastin is comparable in efficacy, safety, and degree of anticoagulation to using a more sensitive thromboplastin.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Standard thromboplastin suffices for low-intensity warfarin monitoring; challenges consensus that sensitive reagents improve control or safety.
The greater precision in prothrombin time monitoring obtained using thromboplastins with low international sensitivity index (ISI) values are believed to result in improved patient care. The authors conducted a blinded prospective study of 84 random patients on low-intensity warfarin therapy who were monitored with either a sensitive (ISI, 1.3) or standard (ISI, 1.9) thromboplastin. For the patients monitored with standard and sensitive thromboplastins, respectively, no difference was found in the degree of anticoagulation (standard thromboplastin mean INR, 2.4 vs. 2.5, P = .37; sensitive thromboplastin mean INR, 2.6 vs. 2.6, P = .74; mean daily warfarin dose, 5.1 vs. 4.7 mg, P = .28) or efficacy (warfarin dosage adjustments, 117 vs. 116; clinic visits, 362 vs. 378; percentage of therapeutic INR determinations, 47% vs. 48%). In addition, no difference was found in bleeding prevalence or severity (.22 vs. .27 events per person-year observation). The authors concluded that monitoring anticoagulant therapy in the INR range of 2-3 with a standard thromboplastin may be comparable to monitoring with a more sensitive thromboplastin with respect to efficacy, safety, and degree of anticoagulation achieved.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brophy et al. (1994) conducted an RCT in Low-intensity oral anticoagulant therapy (n=84). Sensitive thromboplastin (ISI, 1.3) vs. Standard thromboplastin (ISI, 1.9) was evaluated on Percentage of therapeutic INR determinations. Monitoring low-intensity warfarin therapy with a sensitive thromboplastin was comparable to a standard thromboplastin for therapeutic INR time and bleeding events.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: