Key result
Community-based oral anticoagulant monitoring achieved therapeutic INR in 58.3% of measurements, though 68% of patients underwent potentially unnecessary weekly testing.
Why the study?
What is the quality of anticoagulant control and frequency of testing in community-based monitoring for thromboembolic disease?
Observational (n=452)
What is the quality of anticoagulant control and frequency of testing in community-based monitoring for thromboembolic disease?
Community-based anticoagulant monitoring achieves adequate INR control, but the frequency of testing (weekly in 68% of patients) may be unnecessarily high.
Suggests potential for optimized INR control and less frequent testing in community settings; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Oral anticoagulant monitoring is managed by general practitioners in Auckland. An audit of this service in 452 patients demonstrated that anticoagulant control was in line with recommended international guidelines, with 58.3% of international normalized ratio (INR) measurements in the therapeutic range. However, the frequency of testing was high, with the majority of patients (68%), including those on long-term treatment, having INR measurements at weekly intervals. We question the need for such frequent INR testing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Young et al. (2004) conducted an observational in Thromboembolic disease (n=452). Community-based anticoagulant monitoring was evaluated on INR measurements in the therapeutic range. Community-based oral anticoagulant monitoring achieved therapeutic INR in 58.3% of measurements, though 68% of patients underwent potentially unnecessary weekly testing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: