首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery >Is home monitoring of international normalised ratio safer than clinic-based monitoring?
【2h】

Is home monitoring of international normalised ratio safer than clinic-based monitoring?

机译:国际标准化比率的家庭监控是否比基于诊所的监控更安全?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol, to answer the question: ‘In patients taking warfarin, is home self-monitoring of international normalized ratio (INR) safer than clinic-based testing in reducing bleeding, thrombotic events and death?’ Altogether, 268 papers were found using the reported search. Five papers represented the highest level of evidence to answer the clinical question (four systematic reviews with meta-analysis and one meta-analysis). The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The principal outcomes of interest were death, major haemorrhage, major thromboembolism, and time (or percentage time) spent within the therapeutic range, compared between self-monitoring/self-management and conventional management. Self-monitoring/self-management was associated with a significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality of 26–42%. All meta-analyses reported on major thromboembolism, finding significant reductions in risk of ∼50%. One meta-analysis found a 35% reduction in the risk of major haemorrhage, with the other four studies finding no significant difference. Only one study found self-monitoring/self-management to be associated with a significantly greater proportion of time within range, with another finding no significant difference in either the percentage of therapeutic results or in the time within range. The remaining two could not combine data for meta-analysis owing to methodological heterogeneity. We conclude that self-monitoring/self-management appears to be safer than conventional management. It is associated with consistently lower rates of thromboembolism and may also be associated with reduced risk of bleeding and death. This supports the updated guidance from the American College of Chest Physicians, recommending self-management of INR for patients who are both competent and motivated.
机译:根据结构化协议编写了​​一个最佳证据主题,以回答以下问题:“在服用华法林的患者中,国际标准化比(INR)的家庭自我监测在减少出血,血栓形成事件和死亡方面比基于临床的检测安全吗?通过报告的搜索,总共找到了268篇论文。五篇论文代表回答临床问题的最高证据(四篇采用荟萃分析的系统评价和一篇荟萃分析)。这些论文的作者,期刊,出版日期和国家,研究的患者组,研究类型,相关结果和结果均列于表格中。与自我监测/自我管理和常规治疗相比,治疗的主要目的是死亡,严重出血,严重血栓栓塞和花费的时间(或时间百分比)。自我监控/自我管理与导致全因死亡率的风险显着降低26-42%有关。所有荟萃分析均报告了主要的血栓栓塞症,发现风险显着降低了约50%。一项荟萃分析发现重大出血的风险降低了35%,而其他四项研究则没有显着差异。只有一项研究发现自我监控/自我管理与范围内显着更大的时间比例相关,而另一项研究发现治疗结果百分比或范围内的时间均无显着差异。由于方法的异质性,其余两个无法合并数据进行荟萃分析。我们得出的结论是,自我监控/自我管理似乎比传统管理更安全。它与血栓栓塞率持续降低有关,也可能与出血和死亡风险降低有关。这支持了美国胸科医师学院的最新指南,建议有能力和积极性的患者自我管理INR。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号