4.4 Review

Expanding anticoagulation management services to include direct oral anticoagulants

Journal

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND THROMBOLYSIS
Volume 45, Issue 2, Pages 274-280

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11239-017-1602-1

Keywords

Direct oral anticoagulant; Centralized anticoagulation clinic; Anticoagulation

Funding

  1. BiO2 Medical
  2. Bristol Meyers Squibb
  3. Boehringer Ingelheim
  4. BTG EKOS
  5. Daiichi
  6. Janssen

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite the ease of use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), these agents remain high risk medications and their clinical efficacy can be impacted by factors such as patient adherence, drug procurement barriers, bleeding leading to discontinuation, and prescribing that deviates from approved dosing regimens. Clinical monitoring of patients on DOACs should be performed by clinicians who specialize in anticoagulation and are familiar with the nuances of DOAC dosing, monitoring, and other components of anticoagulation management including peri-procedural management and care transitions. Although data for centralized warfarin management have consistently demonstrated improved clinical outcomes compared to traditional management by individual community providers, there are no published data addressing the impact of centralized management of DOACs on clinical outcomes or anticoagulation control. In addition, there is currently no consensus on how to incorporate patients on DOACs into this centralized model, despite recommendations for systematic follow-up by both the Anticoagulation Forum and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. Based on the national recommendations and an identified institutional need, the Brigham and Women's Hospital Anticoagulation Management Service implemented a pilot program to expand services to include patients newly initiated on, or transitioned to, a DOAC. We describe our model for expansion of the AMS to include patients on DOACs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available