SummaryBackground Uptake of self-testing and self-management of oral anticoagulation has remained inconsistent, despite good evidence of their eff ectiveness. To clarify the value of self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation, we did a metaanalysis of individual patient data addressing several important gaps in the evidence, including an estimate of the eff ect on time to death, fi rst major haemorrhage, and thromboembolism.
Background-The Early Self Controlled Anticoagulation Trial (ESCAT I) showed that anticoagulation self-management after mechanical heart valve replacement decreased complication rates by maintaining INR levels closer to the target range than International Normalized Ratio (INR) home doctor management. The therapeutic range for the INR in that study was between 2.5 and 4.5 for all positions of prosthetic valves. ESCAT II should find out whether lowering the target range for INR self-management would further reduce complication rates. Methods-ESCAT II is a prospective controlled randomized (valves: St. Jude Medical Standard or Medtronic Hall, treatment: conventional/low-dose) multicenter study with 3 300 patients. We present interim results of 1 818 patients. 908 were categorized as having a low-dose target range, which was INR 1.8 to 2.8 for prostheses in aortic position and 2.5 to 3.5 for prostheses in mitral position or in combined valve replacement. The control group (conventional group) with 910 patients aimed at an INR of 2.5 to 4.5 for all valve positions. Results-In the conventional group, 74% of INR values measured were within the therapeutic range. In the low-dose group, 72% of the values were within that range. The linearized thromboembolism rate (% per patient year) was 0.21% for both groups. The bleeding complication rate was 0.56% in the low-dose regimen group versus 0.91% in the conventional group.
Conclusions-Early
Background-It is suggested that in young adults the Ross procedure results in better late patient survival compared with mechanical prosthesis implantation. We performed a propensity score-matched study that assessed late survival in young adult patients after a Ross procedure versus that after mechanical aortic valve replacement with optimal self-management anticoagulation therapy. Methods and Results-We selected 918 Ross patients and 406 mechanical valve patients 18 to 60 years of age without dissection, aneurysm, or mitral valve replacement who survived an elective procedure (1994 to 2008). With the use of propensity score matching, late survival was compared between the 2 groups. Two hundred fifty-three patients with a mechanical valve (mean follow-up, 6.3 years) could be propensity matched to a Ross patient (mean follow-up, 5.1 years). Mean age of the matched cohort was 47.3 years in the Ross procedure group and 48.0 years in the mechanical valve group (Pϭ0.17); the ratio of male to female patients was 3.2 in the Ross procedure group and 2.7 in the mechanical valve group (Pϭ0.46). Linearized all-cause mortality rate was 0.53% per patient-year in the Ross procedure group compared with 0.30% per patient-year in the mechanical valve group (matched hazard ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 5.91; Pϭ0.32). Late survival was comparable to that of the general German population. Conclusions-In comparable patients, there is no late survival difference in the first postoperative decade between the Ross procedure and mechanical aortic valve implantation with optimal anticoagulation self-management. Survival in these selected young adult patients closely resembles that of the general population, possibly as a result of highly specialized anticoagulation self-management, better timing of surgery, and improved patient selection in recent years. (Circulation. 2011;123:31-38.)
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.