Important publication missing key information.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Anticoagulants↗
Biomedical subjects
Marc Rodger
Publications and source records attributed to Marc Rodger.
Evaluation of D-dimer in the diagnosis of suspected deep-vein thrombosis.
BACKGROUND: Several diagnostic strategies using ultrasound imaging, measurement of D-dimer, and assessment of clinical probability of disease have proved safe in patients with suspected deep-vein thrombosis, but they have not been compared in randomized trials. METHODS: Outpatients presenting with suspected lower-extremity deep-vein thrombosis were potentially eligible. Using a clinical model, physicians evaluated the patients and categorized them as likely or unlikely to have deep-vein thrombosis. The patients were then randomly assigned to undergo ultrasound imaging alone (control group) or to undergo D-dimer testing (D-dimer group) followed by ultrasound imaging unless the D-dimer test was negative and the patient was considered clinically unlikely to have deep-vein thrombosis, in which case ultrasound imaging was not performed. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty patients were randomly assigned to the control group, and 566 to the D-dimer group. The overall prevalence of deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism was 15.7 percent. Among patients for whom deep-vein thrombosis had been ruled out by the initial diagnostic strategy, there were two confirmed venous thromboembolic events in the D-dimer group (0.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 1.5 percent) and six events in the control group (1.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.5 to 2.9 percent; P=0.16) during three months of follow-up. The use of D-dimer testing resulted in a significant reduction in the use of ultrasonography, from a mean of 1.34 tests per patient in the control group to 0.78 in the D-dimer group (P=0.008). Two hundred eighteen patients (39 percent) in the D-dimer group did not require ultrasound imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Deep-vein thrombosis can be ruled out in a patient who is judged clinically unlikely to have deep-vein thrombosis and who has a negative D-dimer test. Ultrasound testing can be safely omitted in such patients.
Agglutination Tests↗
Comparison of low-intensity warfarin therapy with conventional-intensity warfarin therapy for long-term prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism.
BACKGROUND: Warfarin is very effective in preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism but is also associated with a substantial risk of bleeding. After three months of conventional warfarin therapy, a lower dose of anticoagulant medication may result in less bleeding and still prevent recurrent venous thromboembolism. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind study, in which 738 patients who had completed three or more months of warfarin therapy for unprovoked venous thromboembolism were randomly assigned to continue warfarin therapy with a target international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0 to 3.0 (conventional intensity) or a target INR of 1.5 to 1.9 (low intensity). Patients were followed for an average of 2.4 years. RESULTS: Of 369 patients assigned to low-intensity therapy, 16 had recurrent venous thromboembolism (1.9 per 100 person-years), as compared with 6 of 369 assigned to conventional-intensity therapy (0.7 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 7.0). A major bleeding episode occurred in nine patients assigned to low-intensity therapy (1.1 events per 100 person-years) and eight patients assigned to conventional-intensity therapy (0.9 event per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.4 to 3.0). There was no significant difference in the frequency of overall bleeding between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.8 to 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional-intensity warfarin therapy is more effective than low-intensity warfarin therapy for the long-term prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism. The low-intensity warfarin regimen does not reduce the risk of clinically important bleeding.
Age Factors↗
Comparison of 10-mg and 5-mg warfarin initiation nomograms together with low-molecular-weight heparin for outpatient treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.
BACKGROUND: The optimal means of achieving therapeutic oral anticoagulation in the outpatient setting has not been determined. OBJECTIVE: To compare a 10-mg dosing nomogram with a 5-mg nomogram that has been suggested to be sufficient for warfarin initiation. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Outpatient venous thromboembolism services of four tertiary care hospitals. PATIENTS: 201 of 210 consecutive patients with objectively confirmed diagnoses of acute venous thromboembolism. INTERVENTION: All patients were treated with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin for a minimum of 5 days until a therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) was achieved. Patients were randomly assigned to initially receive a 10-mg or 5-mg dose of warfarin. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was time in days to therapeutic INR. Secondary end points were the proportion of patients who had achieved a therapeutic INR by day 5, the total number of INR assessments, the number of INR measurements greater than 5.0, incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding, and survival. RESULTS: 210 consecutive patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 9 were excluded and 201 were randomly assigned to study groups (104 to the 10-mg group and 97 to the 5-mg group). Demographic characteristics of both groups were similar. Patients in the 10-mg group achieved therapeutic INR 1.4 days earlier than patients in the 5-mg group (P < 0.001). Eighty-three percent of patients in the 10-mg group achieved a therapeutic INR by day 5 versus 46% in the 5-mg group (P < 0.001). Fewer INR assessments were performed in the 10-mg group than in the 5-mg group (8.1 vs. 9.1; P = 0.04). There were no significant differences between the two groups in recurrent events, major bleeding, survival, and number of INR measurements greater than 5.0. CONCLUSION: The 10-mg warfarin initiation nomogram is superior to the 5-mg nomogram because it allows more rapid achievement of a therapeutic INR.
Acute Disease↗
Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: when is imaging needed?
Recent advances in the management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism have improved diagnostic accuracy and made management algorithms safer and more accessible. Ongoing clinical trials are evaluating whether these diagnostic processes can be made even simpler and less expensive. It is now possible to identify low-risk patients with suspected pulmonary embolism in whom imaging procedures can be avoided altogether.
Algorithms↗
Shifting from inpatient to outpatient treatment of deep vein thrombosis in a tertiary care center: a cost-minimization analysis.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost of contemporary outpatient and historical inpatient management of proximal lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in adults. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study with historical inpatient cases as controls. SETTING: Ambulatory thrombosis clinic of a tertiary care teaching center in Canada. PATIENTS: Forty-nine inpatients with DVT from a previous study in 1996 at the same institution who would have been eligible for outpatient therapy if this option had been available, and 51 consecutive patients referred to the ambulatory thrombosis clinic for treatment of DVT between March 2000 and January 2001. INTERVENTION: The 49 inpatients received unfractionated heparin, and the 51 outpatients received low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A cost-minimization analysis restricted to the hospital perspective was conducted. This design was justified based on the clinical equivalence of the two treatment strategies. All direct hospital costs for treating the 51 consecutive outpatients with LMWH were measured. These data were compared with the cost of treating the inpatients with unfractionated heparin. The analysis horizon was limited to 7 days, based on the duration of hospitalization and length of heparin therapy for DVT before conversion to oral warfarin. The mean cost (in Canadian dollars) per outpatient case was 248 Canadian dollars (95% confidence interval 216-280 Canadian dollars) and was significantly different from the mean cost/inpatient case of 2826 Canadian dollars (adjusted for the difference in fiscal years) (p<0.0005). A breakdown of the outpatient cost showed that nursing time contributed to 51% of the cost, monitoring laboratory tests 5%, drugs 2%, and other costs (diagnostic laboratory tests and medical imaging) 42%. CONCLUSION: Converting from inpatient to outpatient treatment of proximal DVT was associated with a significant cost savings for our institution. Accordingly, it is financially advantageous for hospitals to offer this service as it reduces direct costs and does not appear to compromise patient care.
Ambulatory Care↗