Scholarlink

Objective <p>To explore the safety and efficacy of low-intensity anticoagulation in patients after On-X mechanical aortic valve replacement.</p> Methods <p>A total of 104 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement in Cardiac Surgery Department of Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital from December 2018 to December 2021 were randomly divided into low-intensity anticoagulant (INR:1.5-2.0) and high-intensity anticoagulant (INR:2.0-2.5) to compare the incidence of adverse events related to postoperative anticoagulation between the two groups.</p> Results <p>Fifty-three patients were included in the low-intensity anticoagulation group (INR 1.5-2.0), and 51 patients were included in the high-intensity group (2.0-2.5). There was no significant difference in baseline data and surgical index between the two groups (<i>P</i> &gt; 0.05); there were statistically significant differences in PT, INR and bleeding events (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05), but no significant difference in embolic events (<i>P</i> &gt; 0.05).</p> Conclusion <p>For patients requiring On-X mechanical aortic valve replacement who have no risk factors for thromboembolism, it is appropriate to control the INR in the target range 1.5-2.0, which can reduce the incidence of bleeding adverse events and significantly improve the quality of life, without increasing the risk of thromboembolic adverse events.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Application of low-intensity anticoagulation after On-X mechanical aortic valve replacement

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月9日

查看全文
  • Kun Zou,
  • Dachuang Wei,
  • Bo Xiang,
  • Tao Yu,
  • Keli Huang,
  • Shengzhong Liu

摘要

Objective

To explore the safety and efficacy of low-intensity anticoagulation in patients after On-X mechanical aortic valve replacement.

Methods

A total of 104 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement in Cardiac Surgery Department of Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital from December 2018 to December 2021 were randomly divided into low-intensity anticoagulant (INR:1.5-2.0) and high-intensity anticoagulant (INR:2.0-2.5) to compare the incidence of adverse events related to postoperative anticoagulation between the two groups.

Results

Fifty-three patients were included in the low-intensity anticoagulation group (INR 1.5-2.0), and 51 patients were included in the high-intensity group (2.0-2.5). There was no significant difference in baseline data and surgical index between the two groups (P > 0.05); there were statistically significant differences in PT, INR and bleeding events (P < 0.05), but no significant difference in embolic events (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

For patients requiring On-X mechanical aortic valve replacement who have no risk factors for thromboembolism, it is appropriate to control the INR in the target range 1.5-2.0, which can reduce the incidence of bleeding adverse events and significantly improve the quality of life, without increasing the risk of thromboembolic adverse events.