A Prospective Controlled Trial Comparing Weekly Self-testing and Self-dosing with the Standard Management of Patients on Stable Oral Anticoagulation

Summary

Oral anticoagulant therapy requires frequent laboratory controls of its intensity to assure therapeutic efficacy and to prevent potentially life threatening adverse events. It is generally assumed, that increasing the frequency of testing would lead to a better control of anticoagulation. We tested this hypothesis in a prospective controlled trial comparing weekly self-testing and self-dosing (self management) with the standard-management of these patients in an anticoagulation clinic. Only patients with stable anticoagulation were included into the study. We recorded 2733 weekly determinations of the intensity of anticoagulation (INR) in 49 patients on self-testing and self-dosing and 539 determinations of the INR in 53 patients on standard-management. Two intensities of anticoagulation were used in each group: a target INR of 3.5 for patients with artificial heart valves (target range: 2.5–4.5) and a target INR 2.5 (target range: 2.0–3.0) for patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The deviation from the target INR, the fraction of INR determinations within the preset therapeutic range and the difference between the target INR and the actually achieved mean INR were the three major endpoints of the study. The mean deviation from the target INR was smaller in the groups of patients on self–management compared to the patients on standard-management. Individual deviations were significantly (p <0.0001) dependent on the type of management in interaction with the treatment intensity in a general linear model. Patients on weekly self-testing and self-dosing had more INR values within the therapeutic range than patients on standard-management (86.2% vs. 80.1% at INR range 2.5–4.5; 82.2 vs. 68.9 at INR range 2.0–3.0). The achieved mean INR was almost identical with the target INR in the patients on self-management but was significantly (p <0.005) below the target INR in the high intensity anticoagulation group on standard-management (target INR:3.5; achieved mean INR: 3.19; CI 0.95: 3.05–3.34).

Our data show, that weekly self-testing and self-dosing leads to a better control of anticoagulation than standard treatment in an anticoagulation clinic.

The technical equipment used for self testing in this study was provided by Roche Diagnostics, Austria

Key words

Oral anticoagulation - artificial heart valves - venous thrombosis - self-management

• References

• 1 Hirsh J, Dalem JE, Anderson DR, Poller L, Bussey H, Ansell J, Deykin D, Brandt J. Oral anticoagulants: mechanism of action, clinical effectiveness, and optimal therapeutic range. Chest 1998; (Suppl. 05) Nov: 114.
• 2 Cannegieter SC, Rosendaal FR, Wintzen AR, Van der Meer FJM, Vandenbroucke JP, Briet E. Optimal oral anticoagulation in patients with mechanical heart valves. N Eng J Med 1995; 333: 11-7.
• 3 The European Atrial Fibrillation Trial Study Group. Optimal Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation and recent cerebral ischemia. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 5-10.
• 4 Hirsh J. The optimal duration of anticoagulant therapy for venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1710-1.
• 5 Cortelazzo S, Finazzi G, Viero P, Galli M, Remuzzi A, Parenzan L, Barbui T. Thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications in patients with mechanical heart valves attending an anticoagulation clinic. Thromb Haemost 1993; 04: 316-20.
• 6 Hortskotte D, Piper C, Wiemer M. Optimal frequency of patient monitoring and intensity of oral anticoagulation therapy in valvular heart disease. J Thromb Thrombolysis 1998; 05: S19-S24.
• 7 Ansell J, Patel N, Ostrovsky D, Nozzolillo E, Peterson AM, Fish L. Longterm patient self-management of oral anticoagulation. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 2185-9.
• 8 Hasenkam JM, Kimose HH, Knudsen L, Gronnesby H, Halborg J, Christensen TD, Attermann J, Pilegaard HK. Self management of oral anti-coagulant therapy after heart valve replacement. Europe J Cardio-Thorac Surg 1997; 11: 935-42.
• 9 Sawicki PT. A structured teaching and self-management program for patients receiving oral anticoagulation. JAMA 1999; 281: 145-50.
• 10 Kapiotis S, Quehenberger P, Speiser W. Evaluation of the new method COAGUCHEK for the determination of prothrombin time from capillary blood: comparison with THROMBOTEST on KC-1. Thromb Res 1995; 77: 563-7.
• 11 Van den Besselaar AMHP, Breddin K, Lutze G, Parker-Williams J, Taborski U, Vogel G, Tritschler W, Zerback R, Leinberger R. Multicenter evaluation of a new Capillary blood prothrombin time monitoring system. Blood Coagulation Fibrinolysis 1995; 06: 726-32.
• 12 Bernardo A, Halhuber C, Horstkotte D. Home prothrombin estimation. Current Issues in heart valve disease. In: Thrombosis, Embolism and Bleeding. Butchard EG, Bodnar E. (eds). ICR publishers; 1992: 325-30.
• 13 Bernardo B, Leinberger R, Taborski U, Zerback R. Thromboplastinzeit-Selbstbestimmung mit dem CoaguChek-System. Herz/Kreisl 1995; 27: 71-5.
• 14 Douketis JD, Lane A, Milne J, Ginsberg JS. Accuracy of a portable international normalization ratio monitor in outpatients receiving long-term oral anticoagulant therapy: comparison with a laboratory reference standard using clinically relevant criteria for agreement. Thromb Res 1998; 92: 11-7.
• 15 Bernard A, Schüpphaus S, Taborski U, Wittstamm FJ. Die Selbstkontrolle der oralen Antikoagulantien. Deutsches Ärzteblatt-Ärztliche Mitteilungen 1995; 92 (07) 442-4.
• 16 Wittstamm FJ, Bensch L. Sicheres Quickwert-Management durch Selbstbestimmung. Zeitschrift für Kardiologie 1992; 81: 176-9.
• 17 Palareti G, Leali N, Coccheri S, Poggi M, Manotti C, D`Angelo A, Pengo V, Erba N, Moia M, Ciavarella N, Devoto G, Berrettini M, Musolesi S. Bleeding complications of oral anticoagulant treatment: an inception-cohort, prospective collaborative study (ISCOAT). The Lancet 1996; 348: 423-8.
• 18 Hart RG, Boop BS, Anderson DC. Oral anticoagulants and intracranial hemorrhage. Facts and Hypotheses. Stroke 1995; 26: 1471-7.