Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
Web-Based Warfarin Management (Alfalfa App) Versus Traditional Warfarin Management: Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Wenfei, Chen Jiana, Jiang Shaojun, Wang Chunhua, Zhang Jinhua
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Poor anticoagulation management of warfarin may lead to patient admission, prolonged hospital stays, and even death due to anticoagulation-related adverse events. Traditional non-web-based outpatient clinics struggle to provide ideal anticoagulation management services for patients, and there is a need to explore a safer, more effective, and more convenient mode of warfarin management.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare differences in the quality of anticoagulation management and clinical adverse events between a web-based management model (via a smartphone app) and the conventional non-web-based outpatient management model.
METHODS: This study is a prospective cohort research that includes multiple national centers. Patients meeting the nadir criteria were split into a web-based management group using the Alfalfa app or a non-web-based management group with traditional outpatient management, and they were then monitored for a 6-month follow-up period to collect coagulation test results and clinical events. The effectiveness and safety of the 2 management models were assessed by the following indicators: time in therapeutic range (TTR), bleeding events, thromboembolic events, all-cause mortality events, cumulative event rates, and the distribution of the international normalized ratio (INR).
RESULTS: This national multicenter cohort study enrolled 522 patients between June 2019 and May 2021, with 519 (99%) patients reaching the follow-up end point, including 260 (50%) in the non-web-based management group and 259 (50%) in the web-based management group. There were no observable differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 patient groups. The web-based management group had a significantly higher TTR than the non-web-based management group (82.4% vs 71.6%, P<.001), and a higher proportion of patients received effective anticoagulation management (81.2% vs 63.5%, P<.001). The incidence of minor bleeding events in the non-web-based management group was significantly higher than that in the web-based management group (12.1% vs 6.6%, P=.048). Between the 2 groups, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of severe bleeding and thromboembolic and all-cause death events. In addition, compared with the non-web-based management group, the web-based management group had a lower proportion of INR in the extreme subtreatment range (17.6% vs 21.3%) and severe supertreatment range (0% vs 0.8%) and a higher proportion in the treatment range (50.4% vs 43.1%), with statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with traditional non-web-based outpatient management, web-based management via the Alfalfa app may be more beneficial because it can enhance patient anticoagulation management quality, lower the frequency of small bleeding events, and improve INR distribution.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare differences in the quality of anticoagulation management and clinical adverse events between a web-based management model (via a smartphone app) and the conventional non-web-based outpatient management model.
METHODS: This study is a prospective cohort research that includes multiple national centers. Patients meeting the nadir criteria were split into a web-based management group using the Alfalfa app or a non-web-based management group with traditional outpatient management, and they were then monitored for a 6-month follow-up period to collect coagulation test results and clinical events. The effectiveness and safety of the 2 management models were assessed by the following indicators: time in therapeutic range (TTR), bleeding events, thromboembolic events, all-cause mortality events, cumulative event rates, and the distribution of the international normalized ratio (INR).
RESULTS: This national multicenter cohort study enrolled 522 patients between June 2019 and May 2021, with 519 (99%) patients reaching the follow-up end point, including 260 (50%) in the non-web-based management group and 259 (50%) in the web-based management group. There were no observable differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 patient groups. The web-based management group had a significantly higher TTR than the non-web-based management group (82.4% vs 71.6%, P<.001), and a higher proportion of patients received effective anticoagulation management (81.2% vs 63.5%, P<.001). The incidence of minor bleeding events in the non-web-based management group was significantly higher than that in the web-based management group (12.1% vs 6.6%, P=.048). Between the 2 groups, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of severe bleeding and thromboembolic and all-cause death events. In addition, compared with the non-web-based management group, the web-based management group had a lower proportion of INR in the extreme subtreatment range (17.6% vs 21.3%) and severe supertreatment range (0% vs 0.8%) and a higher proportion in the treatment range (50.4% vs 43.1%), with statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with traditional non-web-based outpatient management, web-based management via the Alfalfa app may be more beneficial because it can enhance patient anticoagulation management quality, lower the frequency of small bleeding events, and improve INR distribution.