Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow References
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Disclaimer
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Preiss, M.
Right arrow Articles by Zerkowski, H.-R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Preiss, M.
Right arrow Articles by Zerkowski, H.-R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


Additional information from the GELIA database: analysis of benefit from self-management of oral anticoagulation (GELIA 6)

M. Preiss*, F. Bernet and H.-R. Zerkowski

Clinic for Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Basle, Kantonsspital, Basle, Switzerland

* Correspondence: Michael Preiss, MD, Clinic for Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Basle, Spitalstraße 21, CH-4031 Basle, Switzerland.

Abstract

Aim Oral anticoagulation can be managed either by a general practitioner or by the patient. The objective of the present analysis was to investigate which form of management is more appropriate for handling oral anticoagulation.

Method and results The subgroup of 355 patients in the German Experience in Low Intensity Anticoagulation (GELIA) study who switched during the study from general practitioner management to patient self-management (PSM) comprised the study population. The percentage of International Normalized Ratio measurements within the randomly assigned range was used as an estimator for individual time in target range (TTR), and was measured for each patient during general practitioner management and PSM; patients therefore served as their own controls. Switching from general practitioner management to PSM resulted in a significant benefit (11% greater TTR). Furthermore, with PSM there was a profound tendency toward reduced incidence of serious complications (3·28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2·1–4·8, versus 4·67, 95% CI 2·9–7·1, per 100 patient-years).

Conclusion Clinical outcome was improved with PSM because of the greater TTR. PSM led to more stringent anticoagulation control because of more frequent testing, and was thus equivalent to, if not better than, general practitioner managed anticoagulation.

Key Words: GELIA study • International Normalized Ratio • oral anticoagulation • self-management


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.