Why the study?
Does computer-aided dosing of warfarin improve the percentage of days in a therapeutic anticoagulation range in patients receiving warfarin in a rehabilitation hospital?
Does computer-aided dosing of warfarin improve the percentage of days in a therapeutic anticoagulation range in patients receiving warfarin in a rehabilitation hospital?
Computer-aided dosing of warfarin is superior to physician dosing for maintaining patients within a therapeutic INR range in a rehabilitation hospital setting.
Supports computer-aided warfarin dosing in rehabilitation hospitals; extends RCT evidence to post-acute care settings.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether computer-aided dosing of warfarin is superior to physician dosing to maintain a patient in a rehabilitation hospital within a target international normalized ratio goal. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial in an inpatient rehabilitation hospital. A total of 30 consecutive patients admitted receiving warfarin were randomized to either clinician dosing or computer-aided warfarin dosing for the duration of their hospitalization. The main outcome measures included the percentage of days in a therapeutic anticoagulation range and the number of blood draws. Exclusion criteria included short length of stay (n=110, 39%) and a physician declared international normalized ratio target range of <2.0 (n=67, 23%). A total of 73 patients were excluded because of heme-positive stools at admission, recent gastrointestinal bleed, early discharge or consent refusal. Dawn AC software was used to determine warfarin dosage and frequency of blood draws to maintain a target international normalized ratio of 2.0-3.0 for the computer-dosed group (n=14). Several physicians recommended warfarin dosages for the second group (n=16). Two were dropped from the computer model secondary to lost data files for these two patients. RESULTS: Computer-aided dosing of warfarin resulted in 61.7% of days within the therapeutic range (international normalized ratio, 2-3), whereas clinician dosing resulted in only 44.1%. There were no significant differences in the number of blood draws or demographic variables between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Computers were significantly better at maintaining patients within a therapeutic international normalized ratio range than physicians. There were no significant differences in the number of recommended blood draws.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mitra et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: