Objective To explore the safety and efficacy of mobile APP in telemanagement for patients who received oral warfarin anticoagulant therapy after mechanical heart valve replacement. Methods A prospective cohort study was performed. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 80 patients who underwent mechanical heart valve replacement for more than half a year and received oral warfarin anticoagulant therapy in outpatient department were included in our hospital from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. These patients were divided into a telemanagement group (40 paitents, telemanagement using mobile APP) and a control group (40 patients, anticoagulant management in outpatient clinics) according to patients' wishes and local hospital international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring conditions. After 12-month follow-up, clinical effect of the two groups was compared. The INR, time in therapeutic range (TTR), fraction in therapeutic range (FTTR), anticoagulation-related complications and patient satisfaction were analyzed. Results During the follow-up period of anticoagulation, there was no significant difference in INR between the two groups (P=0.732). The average interval of INR monitoring in the telemanagement group was 3-65 (21.4 ± 12.5) days, while that in the control group was 7-93 (39.6 ± 14.7) days (P=0.012). TTR was 42.7% (6 027.6 d/14 116.0 d) in the control group and 67.9% (10 168.6 d/14 972.0 d) in the telemanagement group (P=0.018). And FTTR in the two groups was 45.6% (144/316) and 67.1% (432/644), respectively (P=0.015). No serious thromboembolism or hemorrhage events occurred in the 80 patients during the 12-month follow-up period. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anticoagulation-related complications, general bleeding and embolism between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion For patients with stable anticoagulation after cardiac mechanical valve replacement, it is safe and effective to telemanagement by mobile APP. Telemanagement can increase the frequency of anticoagulation monitoring without increasing anticoagulation risk, meanwhile, it also could obtain more convenient and rapid consultation, save time and economic costs,and improve the quality of life and patient satisfaction.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) and breast cancer are common diseases with high incidence, which can be promoted and maintained by a wide range of regulatory factors (changes of hormone secretion, chronic inflammation, dysfunctions in autonomic nervous system, coagulation system and endothelia). There may be a consistent pathophysiological link between the increased incidence of breast cancer and AF, which is currently seldomly reported. The development process of these two diseases are complex, and the occurrence of breast cancer may increase the incidence of AF. In this paper, we reviewed the relationship between breast cancer and AF based on the latest reports.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and clinical efficacy of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) versus transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKEP) in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).MethodsRandomized controlled trials of HoLEP versus PKEP in the treatment of BPH published between January 2000 and March 2021 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP database, and Wanfang database. Operative duration, estimated intraoperative blood loss, average duration of urinary catheterization, average duration of bladder irrigation, average length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were used as safety evaluation indicators. Postoperative International Prostatic Symptomatic Score (IPSS), postoperative maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postoperative quality of life (QoL), and postvoid residual (PVR) were used as effective evaluation indicators.ResultsA total of 14 randomized controlled trials were included in this study, with a total of 1 478 patients (744 in the HoLEP group and 734 in the PKEP group). The results of the meta-analysis showed that the intraoperative blood loss in the HoLEP group was less than that in the PKEP group [weighted mean difference (WMD)=−25.95 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) (−31.65, 20.25) mL, P=0.025], the average duration of urinary catheterization [WMD=−10.35 h, 95%CI (−18.25, −2.45) h, P=0.042], average duration of bladder irrigation [WMD=−10.28 h, 95%CI (−17.52, −3.04) h, P=0.038], and average length of hospital stay [WMD=−1.24 d, 95%CI (−1.85, −0.62) d, P=0.033] in the HoLEP group were shorter than those in the PKEP group, and the incidence of postoperative complications [risk ratio=0.70, 95%CI (0.56, 0.87), P=0.047] and 6-month postoperative Qmax [WMD=−0.89 m/s, 95%CI (−1.74, −0.05) m/s, P=0.037] in the HoLEP group were lower than those in the PKEP group. However, there was no significant difference in the operative duration, 3-month postoperative IPSS, 3-month postoperative Qmax, 3-month postoperative QoL, 3-month postoperative PVR, 6-month postoperative IPSS, 6-month postoperative QoL, or 6-month postoperative PVR between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsIn the treatment of BPH, the effectiveness of HoLEP does not differ from that of PKEP, but HoLEP is safer. The conclusions of this study need to be verified in more precisely designed and larger sample-sized multi-center randomized controlled trials.