Key result
Telemedicine-guided very low-dose INR self-control once weekly reduced the risk of grade III complications compared to low-dose INR (HR 0.307; 95% CI 0.102-0.926; P=0.036).
Why the study?
Does telemedicine-guided very low-dose INR self-control reduce major bleeding and thrombotic events in patients with mechanical heart valve implants compared to low-dose INR self-control?
Population
1,571 patients with mechanical heart valve implants
Comparison
Telemedicine-guided very low-dose INR… vs Low-dose INR self-control
Design
RCT, randomly assigned
Follow-up
2 years
Authors
Loading...
Supports telemedicine-guided very low-dose INR self-control in mechanical valve patients; extends RCT evidence for fewer major complications.
RCT (n=1,571)
Does telemedicine-guided very low-dose INR self-control reduce major bleeding and thrombotic events in patients with mechanical heart valve implants compared to low-dose INR self-control?
Hazard Ratio: 0.307 (95% CI 0.102–0.926)
p-value: p=0.036
Telemedicine-guided very low-dose INR self-control reduces bleeding risk without increasing thrombotic risk in patients with mechanical aortic valve replacement, though twice-weekly testing was associated with increased mortality.
Koertke et al. (2014) conducted an RCT in Mechanical heart valve implants (n=1,571). Very low-dose INR self-control vs. Low-dose INR self-control was evaluated on Composite of grade III complications (major bleeding and thrombotic events) (HR 0.307, 95% CI 0.102-0.926, p=0.036). Telemedicine-guided very low-dose INR self-control once weekly reduced the risk of grade III complications compared to low-dose INR (HR 0.307; 95% CI 0.102-0.926; P=0.036).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: