RESUMO
Disease-modifying antirheumatic biological and non-biological therapies are associated with reduced disease progression and joint destruction. Suggestions have been made that total knee and hip joint arthroplasty indications are decreasing as a beneficial effect of the new forms of therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. We present findings of our institution on the incidence of joint arthroplasty in the past few years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and the increase in the numbers of procedures not associated with inflammatory arthritis.
Assuntos
Artrite Reumatoide/cirurgia , Artroplastia de Substituição/tendências , Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Brasil , Progressão da Doença , Necessidades e Demandas de Serviços de Saúde , Humanos , Incidência , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: to compare the international normalized ratio (INR) measured by a point-of-care (POC) testing device with that measured by the conventional method in patients undergoing anticoagulation therapy with warfarin sodium. METHODS: The INR of 383 warfarin-treated patients (mean age: 56.5 years; 207 female) was measured in capillary blood using the Hemochron Jr. device and compared with that of venous plasma samples determined by the conventional method performed in a Coag-A-Mate analyzer. Results were evaluated globally and for the following subgroups: INR < 2.0, from 2.0 to 3.5, and > 3.5. RESULTS: Using both methods, the comparison between INR values yielded a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.86. However, mean differences in INR in both tests, considering the three subgroups, proved to be statistically significant (p <0.001): 0.14 +/- 0.21 (INR< 2.0); 0.54 +/- 0.31 (2.0 < or = INR < or = 3.5), and 1.64 +/- 1.10 (INR> 3.5). Paired Students t-test analysis revealed a p value < 0.001 for the three subgroups studied. CONCLUSION: The use of point-of-care testing for monitoring oral anticoagulation has some limitations. Anticoagulation intensity was underestimated by this method in the three subgroups studied.
Assuntos
Anticoagulantes/uso terapêutico , Coagulação Sanguínea/efeitos dos fármacos , Heparina de Baixo Peso Molecular/uso terapêutico , Coeficiente Internacional Normatizado/métodos , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Tempo de Protrombina , Valores de Referência , Reprodutibilidade dos TestesRESUMO
OBJETIVO: Comparar os resultados do índice de Normalização Internacional (INR) obtidos pelo teste rápido com os do método convencional nos pacientes em terapia de anticoagulação oral com varfarina sódica. MÉTODOS: Para 383 pacientes tratados com varfarina (idade média: 56,5 anos; 207 mulheres), o INR foi determinado em sangue capilar pelo equipamento Hemochron Jr. e comparado com os resultados de amostras de plasma venoso analisadas pelo teste convencional realizado em equipamento Coag-A-Mate. Foram avaliados os resultados do desempenho global das amostras e dos seguintes subgrupos: INR < 2,0, entre 2,0 a 3,5 e > 3,5. RESULTADOS: A comparação entre os valores de INR dos dois métodos resultou em um coeficiente de correlação (r) de 0,86. Entretanto, a análise das diferenças médias entre os resultados dos dois testes, considerando os três subgrupos, apresentou diferenças estatisticamente significativas (p < 0,001): 0,14 ± 0,21 (INR < 2,0); 0,54 ± 0,31 (2,0 < INR < 3,5) e 1,64 ± 1,10 (INR> 3,5). O cálculo do teste t-pareado de Student resultou em um p < 0,001 para os três subgrupos analisados. CONCLUSÃO: A adoção do teste rápido para monitoramento da anticoagulação oral apresenta restrições. Esse método subestimou a intensidade da anticoagulação nos três subgrupos estudados.
OBJECTIVE: to compare the international normalized ratio (INR) measured by a point-of-care (POC) testing device with that measured by the conventional method in patients undergoing anticoagulation therapy with warfarin sodium. METHODS: The INR of 383 warfarin-treated patients (mean age: 56.5 years; 207 female) was measured in capillary blood using the Hemochron Jr. device and compared with that of venous plasma samples determined by the conventional method performed in a Coag-A-Mate analyzer. Results were evaluated globally and for the following subgroups: INR < 2.0, from 2.0 to 3.5, and > 3.5. RESULTS: Using both methods, the comparison between INR values yielded a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.86. However, mean differences in INR in both tests, considering the three subgroups, proved to be statistically significant (p <0.001): 0.14 ± 0.21 (INR< 2.0); 0.54 ± 0.31 (2.0 < INR < 3.5), and 1.64 ± 1.10 (INR> 3.5). Paired StudentÆs t-test analysis revealed a p value < 0.001 for the three subgroups studied. CONCLUSION: The use of point-of-care testing for monitoring oral anticoagulation has some limitations. Anticoagulation intensity was underestimated by this method in the three subgroups studied.