ABSTRACT
Background: Vitamin K antagonists such as acenocoumarol and warfarin are usually indicated for the treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (AF). The Therapeutic Range Time (TRT) is a quality of treatment indicator. Values greater than 65% are associated with significantly lower stroke and bleeding rates. Proper pharmaceutical care improves TRT. Aim: To evaluate the impact of pharmaceutical care in patients with AF treated with acenocoumarol. Material and Methods: We studied 41 patients using acenocoumarol for AF aged 71 ± 11 years (43% women). They received pharmaceutical counseling during 12 weeks. TRT was calculated retrospectively for the year before counseling and prospectively during the intervention period. Results: After receiving pharmaceutical counseling TRT improved from 29% at baseline to 46% at the end of the intervention (p < 0.01). After pharmaceutical care, the adherence of patients to drug treatment improved from 27% at baseline to 85% at the end of the study. The user satisfaction survey of the pharmaceutical care received showed a high degree of patient satisfaction. Conclusions: Pharmaceutical care in patients with oral anticoagulant treatment improves TRT of anticoagulation. It is accepted and positively evaluated by patients.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Atrial Fibrillation/complications , Atrial Fibrillation/drug therapy , Pharmaceutical Preparations , Stroke/prevention & control , Stroke/drug therapy , Administration, Oral , Retrospective Studies , Counseling , Anticoagulants/therapeutic useABSTRACT
Background: INR is used to monitor the treatment with vitamin K antagonists. A strategy to reduce waiting times for sampling is to measure INR in a capillary sample using a portable point of care (POC) type coagulometer. Aim: To evaluate the correlation of CoaguChek Pro II™, Xprecia™ and microINR™ with venous INR measured at the clinical laboratory and their ease of use. Materials and Methods: Patients provided capillary and venous blood samples for parallel tests comparing Xprecia™ Stride with CoaguChek Pro II™ and with venous INR, microINR™ with CoaguChek Pro IITM and with venous INR. The devices' ease of use was assessed surveying the sampling staff. Results: The three tested devices had good correlation coefficients with venous INR: CoaguChek Pro IITM 0.953 and 0.962; Xprecia™ of 0.912 and microINR™ of 0.932. The correlation coefficient of Xprecia™ with CoaguChek Pro IITM was 0.937 and microINR™ with CoaguChek Pro IITM was 0.976. Conclusions: CoaguChek Pro IITM, Xprecia™ and microINR™ results had a good correlation coefficient with INR measured at the laboratory. Our results indicate that, in the hands of trained users, POC-type coagulometers are reliable and acceptable for routine use in anticoagulant treatment control.