BackgroundThe percentage of time during which the patients have the INR within the target values (i.e. Time in Therapeutic Range [TTR]) is a measure of anticoagulation quality with Vitamin K Antagonists (VKA). To evaluate the quality of anticoagulation using TTR according to the Rosendaal method, we performed an observational, retrospective study. We included all outpatients who attended the cardiology anticoagulation clinic of a Portuguese hospital (2011–2013), whose target INR was 2.0-3.0.Results377 VKA-treated patients were evaluated. Of these, 72.4% had non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Patients were followed for a mean period of 471 days. The mean TTR was 60.3% (SD 19.3%) and 44.3% of the patients had a mean TTR < 60%. Patients were at high risk of bleeding (INR > 4.5) and at high thrombotic risk (INR < 1.5) during, respectively, 1.7% and 4.7% of the time.ConclusionsAnticoagulation control needs to be improved. These results are informative for all stakeholders: patients, health care professionals, and policymakers.
The percentage of time in therapeutic range (TTR) is a measure of anticoagulation quality with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). The method most commonly used in clinical trials is the Rosendaal TTR. However, the application of this method in daily practice for clinical decision lacks appropriate instruments. We aimed to evaluate the percentage of tests within the target international normalized ratio (INR) (tests ratio) as a surrogate of Rosendaal TTR. We performed an observational and retrospective study to evaluate the TTR according to the Rosendaal method and tests ratio. We included all outpatients who attended the cardiology anticoagulation clinic of a Portuguese hospital (2011-2013), whose target INR was 2.0-3.0. Three hundred and seventy-seven VKA-treated patients followed for a mean 1.3 years were evaluated. Rosendaal methold and tests ratio significantly correlated (Rho Spearman 0.88, P < 0.001), but the Bland-Altman plot evaluation showed a clinically relevant data dispersion [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -12.9 to 23.1] around a mean difference in TTR -5.1% using the tests ratio method. The linear regression Passing-Bablok confirmed the existence of significant data dispersion and systematic differences. The tests ratio less than 60% had a sensitivity of 91.6%, specificity of 72.3%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 72.2% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 91.6%, for the diagnosis of patients inadequately anticoagulated (Rosendaal TTR <60%). Tests ratio had a c-statistics of 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.96). Number of tests in 6 months had a c-statistics of 0.70 (95% CI 0.65-0.75). Tests ratio underestimated TTR in 5% and was not considered equivalent to Rosendaal TTR due to the high variability between methods. Nevertheless, the use of tests ratio less than 60% may be a reasonable option to detect inadequate anticoagulation, as it is a sensitive method and excluded most of the patients with adequate control.
Preoperative controlled pericardiocentesis can be lifesaving when managing patients with critical cardiac tamponade (pulseless electrical activity or refractory hypotension) complicating acute type A aortic dissection, namely when cardiac surgery is not immediately available.
Exercise stress echocardiography is the most frequently used stress test in our laboratory. Exercise echocardiography is used mainly in the study of patients with coronary artery disease. However, the technique is increasingly being used to study other diseases.In our centre, we use an original methodology, published by us in 2000, in which we evaluate heart function during exercise in the treadmill. After the exercise, patients are maintained in orthostatic position when appropriate or lying down in left lateral decubitus for further evaluation. Since this method seems to increase the quality and the quantity of information obtained in so many clinical arenas, we now present a detailed review of this methodology and its applications.
BACKGROUND: Stress echocardiography has a 72%-85% sensitivity and an 80%-95% specificity. In this study, we characterized patients who received a false-positive stress echocardiogram result. METHODS: A total of 5,256 patients underwent a stress echocardiogram (induced by exercise, dobutamine, or dipyridamole) between 2009 to 2018, and 405 patients (7.7%) received a positive result. Among the positive patients, 300 underwent coronary angiography within 12 months, and these patients were included in this study (mean age = 64.9 ± 9.4 years, 230 men [76.7%]). Coronary artery disease was diagnosed by stenosis ≥50% in any epicardial coronary artery. Clinical and echocardiographic variables were compared between patients with trueand false-positive stress echocardiogram results. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients (24%) had a false-positive stress echocardiogram, with similar rates across stressor types (p = 0.574). Patients with false positives were less frequently men (63.9% vs. 80.7%, p = 0.003), had lower diabetes mellitus prevalence (15.3% vs. 45.6%, p = 0.001), were similar to true positive patients with regard to body-mass index, arterial hypertension prevalence, hyperlipidemia and smoking, and had lower pre-test probability of coronary artery disease (23% vs. 32%, p = 0.016). The wall motion score index (WMSI) was higher in the true-positive stress group, and wall motion abnormalities were more frequent in the apical segments (70.5% vs. 56.7%, p = 0.034). In a multivariable predictive model, men (odds ratio [OR] = 2.994), diabetes (OR = 5.440), and peak WMSI (OR = 10.690) were associated with a true-positive result. CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-four percent of our study population received a false-positive stress echocardiogram result, with similar rates across stressor types. Patients with true-positive stress echocardiogram results are more likely to be men, diabetic, and have a high peak WMSI.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.