Key result
Monitoring unfractionated heparin therapy with an antifactor Xa assay costs $4.37 more over 96 hours than monitoring with aPTT, but results in fewer monitoring tests and dosage changes.
Why the study?
Does monitoring unfractionated heparin therapy by antifactor Xa heparin activity reduce costs and monitoring tests compared to activated partial thromboplastin time in adult patients requiring UFH?
RCT (n=268)
Open-label
randomized
No
Does monitoring unfractionated heparin therapy by antifactor Xa heparin activity reduce costs and monitoring tests compared to activated partial thromboplastin time in adult patients requiring UFH?
Monitoring unfractionated heparin with antifactor Xa activity results in fewer tests and dose changes, offsetting much of the assay's higher cost compared to aPTT monitoring.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
HA monitoring adds modest per-patient cost; leaves open whether advantages justify routine use in larger trials.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Terry K. Rosborough (1999) conducted an RCT in Indications for unfractionated heparin therapy (n=268). Monitoring with antifactor Xa heparin activity (HA) vs. Monitoring with activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) was evaluated on Cost of monitoring unfractionated heparin therapy. Monitoring unfractionated heparin therapy with an antifactor Xa assay costs $4.37 more over 96 hours than monitoring with aPTT, but results in fewer monitoring tests and dosage changes.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: