Self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy for mechanical heart valve patients

Self-management of patients with heart valve replacement and its clinical outcomes: a systematic review

Introduction

For patients with heart valve replacement, self-management can play an essential role in the management of their condition.

Aim

This review aimed to identify the aspects of self-management and its clinical outcomes in patients with heart valve replacement.

Material and methods

In this systematic review, the peer-reviewed research literature on self-management of patients with heart valve replacement was assessed. Since May 2020, the PubMed, Scopus, and web of science databases were searched regardless of time and language limitations. The eligibility of the articles was assessed by title or abstract according to the search strategy. Article selection was applied regarding to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Also, article screening was conducted by 2 independent authors.

Results

Twenty-five studies were considered in this systematic review. For inclusion, the self-management of patients had to have prerequisites, appropriate training, and be applicable in the aspects of anticoagulation therapy self-management, international normalized ratio (INR) self-testing, low-dose INR self-management, and heart valve function self-monitoring. In this method, through proper management of INR levels and anticoagulation therapy, the complications rate could be reduced and the patients would be able to diagnose functional disorders in the early stages by monitoring the valve function. This procedure was able to prevent the progression of complications.

Conclusions

Self-management is an applicable protocol in the field of anticoagulation therapy, INR control, low-dose INR management, and the monitoring of cardiac valve function. This protocol could improve the quality of treatment for these patients through upgrading the care standards.

Self-monitoring and self-management of oral anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

The introduction of point-of-care devices for the management of patients on oral anticoagulation allows self-testing by the patient at home. Patients who self-test can either adjust their medication according to a pre-determined dose-INR (international normalized ratio) schedule (self-management), or they can call a clinic to be told the appropriate dose adjustment (self-monitoring). Increasing evidence suggests self-testing of oral anticoagulant therapy is equal to or better than standard monitoring. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects on thrombotic events, major haemorrhages, and all-cause mortality of self-monitoring or self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy compared to standard monitoring.

SEARCH METHODS

For this review update, we re-ran the searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2015, Issue 6, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to June week 4 2015), Embase (Ovid, 1980 to 2015 week 27) on 1 July 2015. We checked bibliographies and contacted manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. We did not apply any language restrictions .

SELECTION CRITERIA

Outcomes analysed were thromboembolic events, mortality, major haemorrhage, minor haemorrhage, tests in therapeutic range, frequency of testing, and feasibility of self-monitoring and self-management.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently extracted data and we used a fixed-effect model with the Mantzel-Haenzel method to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and Peto's method to verify the results for uncommon outcomes. We examined heterogeneity amongst studies with the Chi(2) and I(2) statistics and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 28 randomised trials including 8950 participants (newly incorporated in this update: 10 trials including 4227 participants). The overall quality of the evidence was generally low to moderate. Pooled estimates showed a reduction in thromboembolic events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; participants = 7594; studies = 18; moderate quality of evidence). Both, trials of self-management or self-monitoring showed reductions in thromboembolic events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70; participants = 3497; studies = 11) and (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97; participants = 4097; studies = 7), respectively; the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. No reduction in all-cause mortality was found (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; participants = 6358; studies = 11; moderate quality of evidence). While self-management caused a reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84; participants = 3058; studies = 8); self-monitoring did not (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.15; participants = 3300; studies = 3); the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. In 20 trials (8018 participants) self-monitoring or self-management did not reduce major haemorrhage (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.12; moderate quality of evidence). There was no significant difference found for minor haemorrhage (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41; participants = 5365; studies = 13). The quality of evidence was graded as low because of serious risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 82%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Participants who self-monitor or self-manage can improve the quality of their oral anticoagulation therapy. Thromboembolic events were reduced, for both those self-monitoring or self-managing oral anticoagulation therapy. A reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in trials of self-management but not in self-monitoring, with no effects on major haemorrhage.

Self-management of warfarin therapy

BACKGROUND

Clinical studies from other countries show that self-management of warfarin therapy may reduce the risk of mortality, thromboembolism and complications when compared to conventional therapy. The purpose of this study was to train patients in self-management and compare the results with conventional therapy in Norway.

METHOD

A total of 23 patients who had previously been given conventional therapy by their GPs were instructed in how to measure INR (using the CoaguChek XS device) and administer warfarin dosage through a structured training programme over the course of 27 weeks. The participants continued with self-management for a further 28 weeks after the end of the training period. The time in the therapeutic range (TTR, measured as a percentage) was calculated and the TTR for conventional therapy and self-management were compared.

RESULTS

No significant difference in average TTR was found when comparing conventional therapy (70% (95% confidence interval (CI) 62-78)) with the self-management period (75% (95% CI 69-81, p = 0.24)). The percentage of extreme INR values (< 1.5 or > 5.0) was higher during conventional therapy than during self-management (6.8% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.001).

INTERPRETATION

No significant difference in TTR was found when comparing self-management and conventional warfarin therapy in our study, but for self-management there was a lower percentage of extreme INR values compared to conventional warfarin therapy.

Quality of life assessment in children commencing home INR self-testing

INTRODUCTION

Management of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) in children is complex and frequent testing of the International Normalised Ratio (INR) is a significant burden. This study evaluates the impact of a home INR self-testing (home ST) program on the quality of life (QoL) of children and their families. The aim of the study was to determine if participation in a home ST program improves QoL for children requiring long-term OAT and their families.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Children aged eight to 18 years requiring long-term OAT and parents of children participated. Quantitative methods comprised three validated QoL questionnaires; the anticoagulation specific PAC QL©, the PedsQL™ and the PedsQL FIM™. Questionnaires were completed before commencing home ST and 6-12 months later. Qualitative methods consisted of open-ended questions which participants answered when completing the questionnaires for the second time. Results of INRs tested at home were collected.

RESULTS

Fifty-five parents and 35 children participated. The percentage of time the children's INRs were in their target therapeutic range was 71.3. Parents reported statistically significant improvements in QoL for themselves (mean increase 6.9), their family (mean increase 8.6) and their child (mean increase 11.1) following the commencement of home ST (difference p≤0.003 on all questionnaires). The children did not report a statically significant improvement in QoL.

CONCLUSION

Parents reported significant improvement for their child's QoL, their QoL and the families' function following commencement of home ST. Children did not report a significant improvement in their QoL, but clearly identified satisfaction with home ST.

Anticoagulation patient self-monitoring in the United States: considerations for clinical practice adoption

Systematic management models such as anticoagulation clinics have emerged in order to optimize warfarin effectiveness and to minimize related complications. Most of these models are structured so that patients come to a clinic for in-person testing and evaluation, thus making this model of care difficult to access and time consuming for many patients. The emergence of portable instruments for measuring anticoagulant effect in capillary whole blood made it possible for patients receiving warfarin to self-monitor the effect of their anticoagulant therapy. Self-monitoring empowers patients, offers the advantage of more frequent monitoring, and increases patient convenience by allowing testing at home and avoiding the need for frequent laboratory and clinic visits. Self-monitoring can entail patient self-testing (PST) and/or patient self-management (PSM). Several studies have evaluated and shown the benefit of both PST and PSM models of care when compared with either routine medical care or anticoagulation clinic management of anticoagulation therapy. Self-monitoring (PSM and/or PST) of anticoagulation results in lower thromboembolic events, lower mortality, and no increase in major bleeding when compared with standard care. Despite favorable results and enhanced patient convenience, the adoption of self-monitoring into clinical practice in the United States has been limited, especially in higher risk, disadvantaged populations. Although the emergence of a multitude of novel oral anticoagulants will permit clinicians to better individualize anticoagulant therapy options by choosing the optimum regimen based on individual patient characteristics, it is also expected that traditional agents will continue to play a role in a significant subset of patients. For those patients treated with traditional anticoagulants such as warfarin, future models of care will entail patient-centered management such as PST and PSM. The incorporation of technology (i.e., Web-based expert systems) is expected to further improve the outcomes realized by PST and PSM. Further studies are needed to explore factors that influence the adoption of self-monitoring in the United States and to evaluate the feasibility and implementation in real-life clinical settings.

Precision and accuracy of point-of-care testing coagulometers used for self-testing and self-management of oral anticoagulation therapy

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulation therapy is monitored by the use of the International Normalized Ratio (INR). Patients who perform self-testing or self-management use a point-of-care testing (POCT) coagulometer (INR monitor) to estimate their INRs. A precondition for a correct dosage of coumarins is a correct INR estimation, and the method and apparatus used for providing the INR measurements are crucial in this context. Several studies have been published regarding the precision and accuracy of these POCT coagulometers, and have led to diverse conclusions. It is difficult and challenging to perform an overview of the literature, owing to the vast amount of papers, with differences in design, statistical analysis, etc.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the current literature, especially regarding the precision and accuracy of the POCT coagulometers, to provide recommendations for clinical use and quality control, and to point out areas for future research.

METHODS

We included a total of 22 studies, of which four were characterized as high-quality studies.

RESULTS

The precision of the POCT coagulometers was generally adequate for clinical use. Their performance in terms of accuracy has to be viewed in the context of the inherent inaccuracies of INR measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of POCT coagulometers seems, in this respect, to be generally acceptable, and they can be used in a clinical setting.

Evaluation of an electronic warfarin nomogram for anticoagulation of hemodialysis patients

Background

Warfarin nomograms to guide dosing have been shown to improve control of the international normalized ratio (INR) in the general outpatient setting. However, the effectiveness of these nomograms in hemodialysis patients is unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of anticoagulation using an electronic warfarin nomogram administered by nurses in outpatient hemodialysis patients, compared to physician directed therapy.

Methods

Hemodialysis patients at any of the six outpatient clinics in Calgary, Alberta, treated with warfarin anticoagulation were included. Two five-month time periods were compared: prior to and post implementation of the nomogram. The primary endpoint was adequacy of anticoagulation (proportion of INR measurements within range ± 0.5 units).

Results

Overall, 67 patients were included in the pre- and 55 in the post-period (with 40 patients in both periods). Using generalized linear mixed models, the adequacy of INR control was similar in both periods for all range INR levels: in detail, range INR 1.5 to 2.5 (pre 93.6% (95% CI: 88.6% - 96.5%); post 95.6% (95% CI: 89.4% - 98.3%); p = 0.95); INR 2.0 to 3.0 (pre 82.2% (95% CI: 77.9% - 85.8%); post 77.4% (95% CI: 72.0% - 82.0%); p = 0.20); and, INR 2.5 to 3.5 (pre 84.3% (95% CI: 59.4% - 95.1%); post 66.8% (95% CI: 39.9% - 86.0%); p = 0.29). The mean number of INR measurements per patient decreased significantly between the pre- (30.5, 95% CI: 27.0 - 34.0) and post- (22.3, 95% CI: 18.4 - 26.1) (p = 0.003) period. There were 3 bleeding events in each of the periods.

Conclusions

An electronic warfarin anticoagulation nomogram administered by nurses achieved INR control similar to that of physician directed therapy among hemodialysis patients in an outpatient setting, with a significant reduction in frequency of testing. Future controlled trials are required to confirm the efficacy of this nomogram.

Self-monitoring and self-management of oral anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

The introduction of portable monitors (point-of-care devices) for the management of patients on oral anticoagulation allows self-testing by the patient at home. Patients who self-test can either adjust their medication according to a pre-determined dose-INR schedule (self-management) or they can call a clinic to be told the appropriate dose adjustment (self-monitoring). Several trials of self-monitoring of oral anticoagulant therapy suggest this may be equal to or better than standard monitoring.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of self-monitoring or self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy compared to standard monitoring.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (to November 2007). We checked bibliographies and contacted manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Outcomes analysed were thromboembolic events, mortality, major haemorrhage, minor haemorrhage, tests in therapeutic range, frequency of testing, and feasibility of self-monitoring and self-management.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently extracted data. We used a fixed-effect model with the Mantzel-Haenzel method to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and Peto's method to verify the results for uncommon outcomes. We examined heterogeneity amongst studies with the Chi(2) and I(2) statistics.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 18 randomized trials (4723 participants). Pooled estimates showed significant reductions in both thromboembolic events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.69) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.89). This reduction in mortality remained significant after the removal of low-quality studies (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.90). Trials of self-management alone showed significant reductions in thromboembolic events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84); self-monitoring did not (thrombotic events RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.00; mortality RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.41). Self-monitoring significantly reduced major haemorrhages (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.91) whilst self-management did not (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.61). Twelve trials reported improvements in the percentage of mean INR measurements in the therapeutic range. No heterogeneity was identified in any of these comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to standard monitoring, patients who self-monitor or self-manage can improve the quality of their oral anticoagulation therapy. The number of thromboembolic events and mortality were decreased without increases in harms. However, self-monitoring or self-management were not feasible for up to half of the patients requiring anticoagulant therapy. Reasons included patient refusal, exclusion by their general practitioner, and inability to complete training.

Point-of-care INR measurement in children requiring warfarin: what has been evaluated and future directions

Many children are surviving primary illnesses and now require thromboprophylaxis as a result of advances in management. Vitamin K antagonists are commonly prescribed to prevent or treat thrombosis. These agents are far more challenging to effectively manage in children. As a result of these challenges, frequent blood monitoring to measure international normalized ratio (INR) values is required. Point-of-care (POC) INR monitors use a capillary blood sample that has been expressed as a solution to improve effective management of vitamin K antagonist therapy. POC INR meters have been demonstrated to be accurate and precise in measuring INRs. Implementation of a standardized education program prior to patient use of POC meters results in differences between measured laboratory INRs and POC INR comparisons that meet criteria for clinical relevance. This indicates that POC INR meters are safe and effective for use in children.

In-patient international normalized ratio self-testing instruction after mechanical heart valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Patient self-testing of the international normalized ratio (INR) has been shown to improve management of anticoagulation with warfarin and reduce risks of thromboembolism and bleeding. Self-testing instruction usually begins several weeks after hospital discharge. We evaluated the feasibility of in-hospital INR self-testing instruction in patients recovering from valve replacement.

METHODS

We instituted an education program on a self-testing device before hospital discharge in 50 adult patients (median age, 54 years; 66% men) undergoing cardiac valve replacement with mechanical prostheses. Patients were monitored for 1 month to assess their ability to self-test and the accuracy of the INR measurements.

RESULTS

Self-testing instruction began on postoperative day 4 (range, 1 to 8 days). Each patient had an average of 3.5 teaching sessions; each session lasted approximately 20 minutes. One month after discharge, all patients (98%) but 1 were able to self-test. No patient required interval instruction. One bleeding episode occurred in a patient whose INR exceeded the therapeutic range. Once warfarin doses were stabilized, 5 patients had subtherapeutic INR values on self-testing. The mean INR test result obtained from the coagulometer correlated well with values obtained by laboratory determination (r = 0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

This evaluation of an in-hospital education program demonstrates that patients are able to learn INR self-testing and that most will continue to use the method without the need for interval instruction. Improved anticoagulation management by early introduction of INR self-testing should reduce thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications after valve replacement.

Self-management versus conventional management of oral anticoagulant therapy: A randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of self-managed oral anticoagulant therapy has been addressed in few randomized, controlled trials, which have provided inconsistent results. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of self-managed oral anticoagulant therapy with conventional management.

METHODS

This was a pragmatic, open-label, randomized, controlled trial where 100 patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulant therapy referred to a Danish clinic for self-management was randomized to either self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy (including a teaching program of self-management followed by 6 months of self-management) or 6 months of conventional management. The primary endpoint was an intention-to-treat analysis of a composite score combining the variance (median square of the standard deviation) of the International Normalized Ratio (INR) value (using a blinded control sample analyzed monthly by a reference laboratory), death, major complications, or discontinuation from the study. Secondary endpoints - assessed in per-protocol analyses - were the variance of the INR value (using the blinded control sample) and time within therapeutic INR target range using the standard INR values from the coagulometer and laboratory measurement.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between the self-management and conventional management groups (composite score 0.16 vs. 0.24, respectively, p=0.09). Self-management was significantly better (0.16 vs. 0.24, p=0.003) with regard to the variance in a per-protocol analysis. The difference in time within therapeutic INR target range was not significantly better (78.7% vs. 68.9%, p=0.14) using self-management.

CONCLUSION

The quality of self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy is at least as good as that provided by conventional management.

[Portable coagulometers: a systematic review of the evidence on self-management of oral anticoagulant treatment]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review the scientific evidence about the use of portable coagulometers for patient's self-management of oral anticoagulant treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Systematic review of scientific evidence available from MEDLINE'S, DARE's, HTA-Database's, NHS-EED's and The Cochrane Library' s bibliographic databases, from their origin to March 2003. Randomized control trials (RCT) and Quasi-Experimental trials were selected provided that they compared patients in self-management with patients under usual care. The quality of scientific evidence was elicited using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) recommendations, whilst efficacy and security were descriptively summarized.

RESULTS

Twelve (7 RCT and 5 quasi-experimental trials) articles were found, and only two of them provided grade A recommendation. Patients under self-management remained the same or more time in the therapeutic range. The incidence of adverse effects in self-management patients was the same or less than that in patients under usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the scientific evidence is heterogeneous. For selected patients, patient's self-management is at least as effective and safe as usual care. New oral anticaogulants, which have shown promising results, should be scrutinized for future changes in service provision.