Coagulation Monitoring

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 839-856 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoine G. Rochon ◽  
Linda Shore-Lesserson
Keyword(s):  
Coagulation Monitoring

scholarly journals Considerations for routine coagulation monitoring with rivaroxaban: A case report and review of the literature

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 382-388
Author(s):  
Hai-Di Wu ◽  
Hong-Yan Cao ◽  
Zi-Kai Song ◽  
Shuo Yang ◽  
Ming-Long Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Coagulation Monitoring ◽  
Routine Coagulation

scholarly journals Engineering a simple lateral flow device for animal blood coagulation monitoring

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 014110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua Li ◽  
Daewoo Han ◽  
Giovanni M. Pauletti ◽  
Andrew J. Steckl
Keyword(s):  
Blood Coagulation ◽  
Lateral Flow ◽  
Animal Blood ◽  
Lateral Flow Device ◽  
Coagulation Monitoring ◽  
Flow Device

Coagulation Monitoring

2011 ◽  
pp. 496-519
Author(s):  
Linda Shore-lesserson ◽  
Liza J. Enriquez
Keyword(s):  
Coagulation Monitoring

Outcomes for Ximelagatran Compared with Warfarin According to INR Control: Results from SPORTIF III and V Atrial Fibrillation Trials.

Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 902-902 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Kaatz ◽  
Harvey D. White ◽  
Michael Gruber ◽  
Gregory W. Albers
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Oral Dose ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Total Mortality ◽  
International Normalized Ratio ◽  
Lower Mortality ◽  
Thrombin Inhibitor ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Minor Bleeding ◽  
Coagulation Monitoring

Abstract Background: Warfarin effectively reduces the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, but requires regular monitoring to maintain the target international normalized ratio (INR). Ximelagatran, a novel direct thrombin inhibitor, does not require coagulation monitoring and can be administered at a fixed oral dose. Methods: Outcomes in warfarin patients (n = 3587) from the SPORTIF III and V trials according to time spent in the therapeutic target INR range of 2–3 (≥ 76% of the time = good INR control [n = 1190]; 60–75% of the time = moderate INR control [n = 1207]; and < 60% of the time = poor INR control [n = 1190]) were compared with ximelagatran patients (n = 3664). The primary endpoint was stroke/systemic embolic event (SEE). Results: Mean follow-up was 16.6 (± 6.3) months. Outcomes in warfarin patients according to INR control are shown in the table. Ximelagatran patients had numerically lower stroke/SEE rates than the warfarin patients with poor INR control (1.43%/yr vs 2.10%/yr; P = 0.08), as well as lower mortality (2.36%/yr vs 4.20%/yr; P < 0.01) and major bleeding (1.89%/yr vs 3.85%/yr; P < 0.01). The incidence of stroke/SEE and major bleeding did not differ statistically among the moderate INR control, good INR control, and ximelagatran groups. However, major + minor bleeding was more common in the moderate INR control group than the ximelagatran group (41.8% vs 32.5%; P < 0.01). Conclusions: In warfarin-treated atrial fibrillation patients, the risks of stroke/SEE, mortality, and major bleeding are related to INR control, with a significant reduction in these events with good vs poor INR control. Compared with the one-third of patients who experienced poor INR control, patients randomized to ximelagatran administered at a fixed oral dose without the need for coagulation monitoring had a lower mortality rate and less major bleeding. Outcome Poor INR Control Moderate INR Control Good INR Control Poor vs Moderate Poor vs Good Good vs Moderate Stroke/SEE, %/yr 2.10 1.34 1.07 P = 0.09 P = 0.02 P < 0.01 Total mortality, %/yr 4.20 1.84 1.69 P < 0.01 P < 0.01 P < 0.01 Major bleeding, %/yr 3.85 1.96 1.58 P < 0.01 P < 0.01 P < 0.01

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document