López LM, López PM, Vidales LA

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 292-298
PDF size: 362.98 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Anticoagulant therapy is more frequent by the growing number of heart surgeries and thrombus embolic problems. Control and surveillance is needed in order to avoid life threatening complications. The INR is the test to control. INR optimum values are 2.00 to 3.5, suboptimal value is below 2.00 and implies risk of thromboembolism, and anticoagulated (above 3.5) implies risk of bleeding.
Objective: To determine the efficacy of anti-coagulation in patients in control, as well as the incidence of complications.
Material and method: Retrospective and descriptive study of 40 patients, of whom 23 were finally chosen. We analyzed the INR results obtained over a year. The effectiveness was assessed based on the INR as: optimum, anticoagulation, and subanticoagulacion, as well as in the absence of complications. The variables considered were: age, degree of INR, co-morbidity and complications suffered in a year.
Results: In order to analyze the effectiveness of anticoagulation, we evaluated regular patients (23 of 40), 52.5% of them were masculine and 47.5% were feminine, with a range of 37 to 85 years old and an average of 61 years. A 90% of them were older than 50 years; in total, 60% of the patients were older than 60 years. Co-morbidities found were diabetes and hypertension (57%) and a history of surgery (57%).
Conclusion: Efficacy of anticoagulant intensity in optimal therapeutic range was 70%. A 23.5% of the patients were in sub-anticoagulated level and 6.37% were in over-anticoagulated level. Were observed complications in 2.5% of patients; 97.5% of them had no complications while 30% had values that were outside the optimal range during 2012. The complications observed in the anticoagulation clinic along 9 years are 10% (four patients).

REFERENCES

1. Hirsh J, Dalen JE, Anderson DR, et al. Oral anticoagulants: mechanism of action, clinical effectiveness and optimal therapeutic range. Sixth ACCP. Consensus Conference on Anti thrombotic Therapy. Chest 2001;119:8S-21S.

2. Anseel JE, Hughes RM. Involving models of warfarin management: Anticoagulation Clinics, patient self-monitoring and patients self-management. Am Heart J 1996;1095-1100.

3. Levine MN, Raskob G, Landefeld S, Kearon C. Hemorrhagic complications of anticoagulant treatment. Chest 2001;119:108SS-121S.

4. Chiquette E, Amanto MG, Bussey HI. Comparison of an anticoagulation clinic with usual medical care anticoagulation control, patient outcomes and health care cost. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:1641-1647.

5. Hirsh J, Fuster V, Ansell J. A Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Foundation Guide to Warfarin Therapy. Circulation 2003;107:1692-1971.

6. Gadisseur AP, Kaptein AA, Breukink-Engbers WG, van der Meer FJ, Rosendaal FR. Patient self-management of oral anticoagulant care vs. management by specialized anticoagulation clinics: positive effects on quality of life. J Thromb Haemost 2004;2:584-591.

7. Stein P, Alpert J, Busset H. Antithrombotic therapy in patient with mechanical and biological prosthetic heart valves. Chest 2001;119:220S-227S.

8. Ansell J, Hirsh J, Dalen J, Bussey H. Managing oral anticoagulant therapy. Chest 2001;119:22S-38S.

9. Elodi S, Varadi K, Hollan SR. Sof error in the one-stage assay of factor VIII. Haemostasis 1978;7:1-9.

10. Ruiz de Chávez-Ochoa AA, Núñez-Pérez E, Muñoz-Muñoz B, Majluf-Cruz A. El control de la calidad en el laboratorio de coagulación. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2008;46:339-348.

11. Vongpatanasin W, Hillis LD, Lange R. Prosthetic heart valves. N Engl J Med 1996;335:407-416.

12. Nutescu EA. The future of anticoagulation clinics. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2003;16:61-63.

13. Heras M, Chesebro JH, Fuster V, et al. High risk of thromboembolism early alter bioprosthetic cardiac valve replacement. J AM Coll Cardiol 1995;25:1111-1119.

14. Goodman G, Gilman G. Las bases farmacológicas de la terapéutica. 10ª ed. México: McGraw-Hill; 2003:1546.