이엽성 기게 심장판막 환자에 대한 낮은 강도의 항응고제 요법의 결과에 대한 임상분석

Background: All the patients with mechanical valves require warfarin therapy in order to prevent them from developing thromboembolic complications. According to the ACC/AHA practice guidelines, after AVR with bileaflet mechanical prostheses in patients with no risk factors, warfarin is indicated to...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Taehan Hyungbu Oekwa Hakhoe chi 2008, Vol.41 (4), p.430-438
Hauptverfasser: 정성철, 김미정, 송창민, 김우식, 신용철, 김병열, Jeong, Seong-Cheol, Kim, Mi-Jung, Song, Chang-Min, Kim, Woo-Shik, Shin, Yong-Chul, Kim, Byung-Yul
Format: Artikel
Sprache:kor
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 438
container_issue 4
container_start_page 430
container_title Taehan Hyungbu Oekwa Hakhoe chi
container_volume 41
creator 정성철
김미정
송창민
김우식
신용철
김병열
Jeong, Seong-Cheol
Kim, Mi-Jung
Song, Chang-Min
Kim, Woo-Shik
Shin, Yong-Chul
Kim, Byung-Yul
description Background: All the patients with mechanical valves require warfarin therapy in order to prevent them from developing thromboembolic complications. According to the ACC/AHA practice guidelines, after AVR with bileaflet mechanical prostheses in patients with no risk factors, warfarin is indicated to achieve an INR of 2.0 to 3.0. After MVR with any mechanical valve, warfarin is indicated to achieve an INR of 2.5 to 3.5. But in our clinical experience, bleeding complications (epistaxis, hematuria, uterine bleeding, intracerebral hemorrhage etc.) frequently developed in patients who maintained their INR within this value. So, we retrospectively reviewed the patients with bileaflet mechanical heart valve prosthesis and we determined the optimal anticoagulation value. Material and Method: From January 1984 to February 2007, 311 patients have been followed up at a national medical center. We classified the AVR patients (n=60) into three groups as follows: an INR from 1.5 to 2.0 in Group I, an INR from 2.0 to 2.5 in Group II and an INR from 2.5 to 3.0 in Group III. We classified the MVR (n=171) and DVR (n=80) patients into four groups as follows: an INR from 1.5 to 2.0 in Group I, an INR from 2.0 to 2.5 in Group II, an INR from 2.5 to 3.0 in Group III and an INR from 3.0 to 3.5 in Group III. We compared the groups for their thromboembolic and bleeding complications by means of the Kaplan Meier method. Result: In the AVR patients, 2 thromboembolic complications and 4 bleeding complications occurred and the log rank test failed to identify any statistical significance between the groups for thethromboembolic complication rate, but groups I and II had lower bleeding complication rates than did group III. Thirteen thromboembolic complication and 15 bleeding complication occurred in the MVR and DVR patients, and the log rank test also failed to identify statistical significance between the groups for the thromboembolic complication rate, but groups I and II had lower bleeding complication rates that did groups III and IV. Conclusion: The thromboembolic complication rate was not statistically different between groups I and II and groups III and IV, but the bleeding complication rates of groups I and II were lower than those of groups III and IV. So this outcome encouraged us to continue using our low intensive anticoagulation regime, that is, an INR of 1.5 to 2.5. 배경: 기계 심장판막 대치술 후 발생하는 혈전성 합병증을 방지하기 위해 항응고제 치료로써 와파린을 환자에게 투여한다. 이때 환자에 따른 적절한 와파린 용량을 결정하기 위한 지표로서 INR을 참
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>kisti</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_kisti_ndsl_JAKO200828939702953</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>JAKO200828939702953</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-kisti_ndsl_JAKO2008289397029533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0MDYw1DWyMLXkYOAtLs5MMjA2MzK3MDU15mQoeTN3y5vpe9-0bFR4tWPDq009Cm-617yZt_Rtz4TXyzsV3s6c8WbehDfTJyi87ml4O3WOwuumdW_mNii82jD1dX_Lm7kzFN5OXftm7sRXmxe8WTBH4c2sKa83TQUJv9q04dXmPUga38xredPc-Hpby5uWuTwMrGmJOcWpvFCam0HVzTXE2UM3O7O4JDM-L6U4J97L0dvfyMDAwsjC0tjS3MDI0tTYmFh1ABE1a4w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>이엽성 기게 심장판막 환자에 대한 낮은 강도의 항응고제 요법의 결과에 대한 임상분석</title><source>KoreaMed Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>정성철 ; 김미정 ; 송창민 ; 김우식 ; 신용철 ; 김병열 ; Jeong, Seong-Cheol ; Kim, Mi-Jung ; Song, Chang-Min ; Kim, Woo-Shik ; Shin, Yong-Chul ; Kim, Byung-Yul</creator><creatorcontrib>정성철 ; 김미정 ; 송창민 ; 김우식 ; 신용철 ; 김병열 ; Jeong, Seong-Cheol ; Kim, Mi-Jung ; Song, Chang-Min ; Kim, Woo-Shik ; Shin, Yong-Chul ; Kim, Byung-Yul</creatorcontrib><description>Background: All the patients with mechanical valves require warfarin therapy in order to prevent them from developing thromboembolic complications. According to the ACC/AHA practice guidelines, after AVR with bileaflet mechanical prostheses in patients with no risk factors, warfarin is indicated to achieve an INR of 2.0 to 3.0. After MVR with any mechanical valve, warfarin is indicated to achieve an INR of 2.5 to 3.5. But in our clinical experience, bleeding complications (epistaxis, hematuria, uterine bleeding, intracerebral hemorrhage etc.) frequently developed in patients who maintained their INR within this value. So, we retrospectively reviewed the patients with bileaflet mechanical heart valve prosthesis and we determined the optimal anticoagulation value. Material and Method: From January 1984 to February 2007, 311 patients have been followed up at a national medical center. We classified the AVR patients (n=60) into three groups as follows: an INR from 1.5 to 2.0 in Group I, an INR from 2.0 to 2.5 in Group II and an INR from 2.5 to 3.0 in Group III. We classified the MVR (n=171) and DVR (n=80) patients into four groups as follows: an INR from 1.5 to 2.0 in Group I, an INR from 2.0 to 2.5 in Group II, an INR from 2.5 to 3.0 in Group III and an INR from 3.0 to 3.5 in Group III. We compared the groups for their thromboembolic and bleeding complications by means of the Kaplan Meier method. Result: In the AVR patients, 2 thromboembolic complications and 4 bleeding complications occurred and the log rank test failed to identify any statistical significance between the groups for thethromboembolic complication rate, but groups I and II had lower bleeding complication rates than did group III. Thirteen thromboembolic complication and 15 bleeding complication occurred in the MVR and DVR patients, and the log rank test also failed to identify statistical significance between the groups for the thromboembolic complication rate, but groups I and II had lower bleeding complication rates that did groups III and IV. Conclusion: The thromboembolic complication rate was not statistically different between groups I and II and groups III and IV, but the bleeding complication rates of groups I and II were lower than those of groups III and IV. So this outcome encouraged us to continue using our low intensive anticoagulation regime, that is, an INR of 1.5 to 2.5. 배경: 기계 심장판막 대치술 후 발생하는 혈전성 합병증을 방지하기 위해 항응고제 치료로써 와파린을 환자에게 투여한다. 이때 환자에 따른 적절한 와파린 용량을 결정하기 위한 지표로서 INR을 참고하는데 통상 대동맥판막은 $2.0{\sim}3.0$, 승모판막은 $2.5{\sim}3.5$가 참고치로서 받아들여지고 있다. 하지만 임상 경험상 대부분의 환자에서 이 수치로 유지하였을때 출혈성 합병증(비출혈, 혈뇨, 자궁출혈, 뇌출혈 등)이 빈번하게 발생하여 참고치보다 더 낮게 유지하는 경우가 많다. 이에 본원에서는 기계 심장판막 환자들을 후향적으로 조사하여 혈전성 합병증의 빈도가 낮은 적정한 INR을 알아보고자 한다. 대상 및 방법: 1984년 1월부터 2007년 2월까지 이엽성 기계 심장판막 대치술을 받고 생존한 311명의 환자를 대상으로 후향적으로 조사하였다. 대동맥판막치환 환자들(60명)은 INR $1.5{\sim}2.0$ (1군), $2.0{\sim}2.5$ (2군), 2.5 (3군) 이상의 세 군으로 나누고 승모판막치환(171명)이나 승모판막과 대동맥판막을 동시에 치환한 환자들(80명)은 INR $1.5{\sim}2.0$ (1군), $2.0{\sim}2.5$ (2군), $2.5{\sim}3.0$ (3군), 3.0 (4군) 이상의 네군으로 나누어 혈전성 합병증 발생률, 중요출혈성합병증 발생률을 조사하여 각각의 생존함수를 비교하였다. 결과: 대동맥 판막치환 환자 중 혈전성 합병증은 2명, 출혈성합병증은 4명이 발생하였고 세군의 혈전성 합병증의 생존함수의 차이는 관찰되지 않았고 출혈성 합병증의 생존곡선에서 1, 2군과 3군의 차이가 관찰되었다. 승모판막치환이나 승모판막과 대동맥판막을 동시에 치환한 환자들 중 혈전성 합병증은 13명, 출혈성 합병증은 15명이 발생하였고 네 군의 혈전성 합병증의 생존함수의 차이는 관찰되지 않았고 출혈성 합병증은 1, 2군과 3, 4군에서 차이를 보였다. 결론: 모든 판막에서 INR이 $1.5{\sim}2.5$ (1군과 2군)로 유지한 환자들이 그 이상으로 유지한 환자들보다 혈전성 합병증에서 차이를 보이지 않았고 출혈성 합병증에서 유의하게 감소하는 양상을 보여 이엽성 기계판막에서 적정한 INR은 $1.5{\sim}2.5$로 유지하는 것이 바람직하다고 판단된다.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-2859</identifier><language>kor</language><ispartof>Taehan Hyungbu Oekwa Hakhoe chi, 2008, Vol.41 (4), p.430-438</ispartof><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,4024</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>정성철</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>김미정</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>송창민</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>김우식</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>신용철</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>김병열</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jeong, Seong-Cheol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Mi-Jung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Chang-Min</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Woo-Shik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shin, Yong-Chul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Byung-Yul</creatorcontrib><title>이엽성 기게 심장판막 환자에 대한 낮은 강도의 항응고제 요법의 결과에 대한 임상분석</title><title>Taehan Hyungbu Oekwa Hakhoe chi</title><addtitle>The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery</addtitle><description>Background: All the patients with mechanical valves require warfarin therapy in order to prevent them from developing thromboembolic complications. According to the ACC/AHA practice guidelines, after AVR with bileaflet mechanical prostheses in patients with no risk factors, warfarin is indicated to achieve an INR of 2.0 to 3.0. After MVR with any mechanical valve, warfarin is indicated to achieve an INR of 2.5 to 3.5. But in our clinical experience, bleeding complications (epistaxis, hematuria, uterine bleeding, intracerebral hemorrhage etc.) frequently developed in patients who maintained their INR within this value. So, we retrospectively reviewed the patients with bileaflet mechanical heart valve prosthesis and we determined the optimal anticoagulation value. Material and Method: From January 1984 to February 2007, 311 patients have been followed up at a national medical center. We classified the AVR patients (n=60) into three groups as follows: an INR from 1.5 to 2.0 in Group I, an INR from 2.0 to 2.5 in Group II and an INR from 2.5 to 3.0 in Group III. We classified the MVR (n=171) and DVR (n=80) patients into four groups as follows: an INR from 1.5 to 2.0 in Group I, an INR from 2.0 to 2.5 in Group II, an INR from 2.5 to 3.0 in Group III and an INR from 3.0 to 3.5 in Group III. We compared the groups for their thromboembolic and bleeding complications by means of the Kaplan Meier method. Result: In the AVR patients, 2 thromboembolic complications and 4 bleeding complications occurred and the log rank test failed to identify any statistical significance between the groups for thethromboembolic complication rate, but groups I and II had lower bleeding complication rates than did group III. Thirteen thromboembolic complication and 15 bleeding complication occurred in the MVR and DVR patients, and the log rank test also failed to identify statistical significance between the groups for the thromboembolic complication rate, but groups I and II had lower bleeding complication rates that did groups III and IV. Conclusion: The thromboembolic complication rate was not statistically different between groups I and II and groups III and IV, but the bleeding complication rates of groups I and II were lower than those of groups III and IV. So this outcome encouraged us to continue using our low intensive anticoagulation regime, that is, an INR of 1.5 to 2.5. 배경: 기계 심장판막 대치술 후 발생하는 혈전성 합병증을 방지하기 위해 항응고제 치료로써 와파린을 환자에게 투여한다. 이때 환자에 따른 적절한 와파린 용량을 결정하기 위한 지표로서 INR을 참고하는데 통상 대동맥판막은 $2.0{\sim}3.0$, 승모판막은 $2.5{\sim}3.5$가 참고치로서 받아들여지고 있다. 하지만 임상 경험상 대부분의 환자에서 이 수치로 유지하였을때 출혈성 합병증(비출혈, 혈뇨, 자궁출혈, 뇌출혈 등)이 빈번하게 발생하여 참고치보다 더 낮게 유지하는 경우가 많다. 이에 본원에서는 기계 심장판막 환자들을 후향적으로 조사하여 혈전성 합병증의 빈도가 낮은 적정한 INR을 알아보고자 한다. 대상 및 방법: 1984년 1월부터 2007년 2월까지 이엽성 기계 심장판막 대치술을 받고 생존한 311명의 환자를 대상으로 후향적으로 조사하였다. 대동맥판막치환 환자들(60명)은 INR $1.5{\sim}2.0$ (1군), $2.0{\sim}2.5$ (2군), 2.5 (3군) 이상의 세 군으로 나누고 승모판막치환(171명)이나 승모판막과 대동맥판막을 동시에 치환한 환자들(80명)은 INR $1.5{\sim}2.0$ (1군), $2.0{\sim}2.5$ (2군), $2.5{\sim}3.0$ (3군), 3.0 (4군) 이상의 네군으로 나누어 혈전성 합병증 발생률, 중요출혈성합병증 발생률을 조사하여 각각의 생존함수를 비교하였다. 결과: 대동맥 판막치환 환자 중 혈전성 합병증은 2명, 출혈성합병증은 4명이 발생하였고 세군의 혈전성 합병증의 생존함수의 차이는 관찰되지 않았고 출혈성 합병증의 생존곡선에서 1, 2군과 3군의 차이가 관찰되었다. 승모판막치환이나 승모판막과 대동맥판막을 동시에 치환한 환자들 중 혈전성 합병증은 13명, 출혈성 합병증은 15명이 발생하였고 네 군의 혈전성 합병증의 생존함수의 차이는 관찰되지 않았고 출혈성 합병증은 1, 2군과 3, 4군에서 차이를 보였다. 결론: 모든 판막에서 INR이 $1.5{\sim}2.5$ (1군과 2군)로 유지한 환자들이 그 이상으로 유지한 환자들보다 혈전성 합병증에서 차이를 보이지 않았고 출혈성 합병증에서 유의하게 감소하는 양상을 보여 이엽성 기계판막에서 적정한 INR은 $1.5{\sim}2.5$로 유지하는 것이 바람직하다고 판단된다.</description><issn>0301-2859</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>JDI</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYeA0MDYw1DWyMLXkYOAtLs5MMjA2MzK3MDU15mQoeTN3y5vpe9-0bFR4tWPDq009Cm-617yZt_Rtz4TXyzsV3s6c8WbehDfTJyi87ml4O3WOwuumdW_mNii82jD1dX_Lm7kzFN5OXftm7sRXmxe8WTBH4c2sKa83TQUJv9q04dXmPUga38xredPc-Hpby5uWuTwMrGmJOcWpvFCam0HVzTXE2UM3O7O4JDM-L6U4J97L0dvfyMDAwsjC0tjS3MDI0tTYmFh1ABE1a4w</recordid><startdate>2008</startdate><enddate>2008</enddate><creator>정성철</creator><creator>김미정</creator><creator>송창민</creator><creator>김우식</creator><creator>신용철</creator><creator>김병열</creator><creator>Jeong, Seong-Cheol</creator><creator>Kim, Mi-Jung</creator><creator>Song, Chang-Min</creator><creator>Kim, Woo-Shik</creator><creator>Shin, Yong-Chul</creator><creator>Kim, Byung-Yul</creator><scope>JDI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2008</creationdate><title>이엽성 기게 심장판막 환자에 대한 낮은 강도의 항응고제 요법의 결과에 대한 임상분석</title><author>정성철 ; 김미정 ; 송창민 ; 김우식 ; 신용철 ; 김병열 ; Jeong, Seong-Cheol ; Kim, Mi-Jung ; Song, Chang-Min ; Kim, Woo-Shik ; Shin, Yong-Chul ; Kim, Byung-Yul</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-kisti_ndsl_JAKO2008289397029533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>kor</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>정성철</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>김미정</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>송창민</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>김우식</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>신용철</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>김병열</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jeong, Seong-Cheol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Mi-Jung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Chang-Min</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Woo-Shik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shin, Yong-Chul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Byung-Yul</creatorcontrib><collection>KoreaScience</collection><jtitle>Taehan Hyungbu Oekwa Hakhoe chi</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>정성철</au><au>김미정</au><au>송창민</au><au>김우식</au><au>신용철</au><au>김병열</au><au>Jeong, Seong-Cheol</au><au>Kim, Mi-Jung</au><au>Song, Chang-Min</au><au>Kim, Woo-Shik</au><au>Shin, Yong-Chul</au><au>Kim, Byung-Yul</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>이엽성 기게 심장판막 환자에 대한 낮은 강도의 항응고제 요법의 결과에 대한 임상분석</atitle><jtitle>Taehan Hyungbu Oekwa Hakhoe chi</jtitle><addtitle>The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery</addtitle><date>2008</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>430</spage><epage>438</epage><pages>430-438</pages><issn>0301-2859</issn><abstract>Background: All the patients with mechanical valves require warfarin therapy in order to prevent them from developing thromboembolic complications. According to the ACC/AHA practice guidelines, after AVR with bileaflet mechanical prostheses in patients with no risk factors, warfarin is indicated to achieve an INR of 2.0 to 3.0. After MVR with any mechanical valve, warfarin is indicated to achieve an INR of 2.5 to 3.5. But in our clinical experience, bleeding complications (epistaxis, hematuria, uterine bleeding, intracerebral hemorrhage etc.) frequently developed in patients who maintained their INR within this value. So, we retrospectively reviewed the patients with bileaflet mechanical heart valve prosthesis and we determined the optimal anticoagulation value. Material and Method: From January 1984 to February 2007, 311 patients have been followed up at a national medical center. We classified the AVR patients (n=60) into three groups as follows: an INR from 1.5 to 2.0 in Group I, an INR from 2.0 to 2.5 in Group II and an INR from 2.5 to 3.0 in Group III. We classified the MVR (n=171) and DVR (n=80) patients into four groups as follows: an INR from 1.5 to 2.0 in Group I, an INR from 2.0 to 2.5 in Group II, an INR from 2.5 to 3.0 in Group III and an INR from 3.0 to 3.5 in Group III. We compared the groups for their thromboembolic and bleeding complications by means of the Kaplan Meier method. Result: In the AVR patients, 2 thromboembolic complications and 4 bleeding complications occurred and the log rank test failed to identify any statistical significance between the groups for thethromboembolic complication rate, but groups I and II had lower bleeding complication rates than did group III. Thirteen thromboembolic complication and 15 bleeding complication occurred in the MVR and DVR patients, and the log rank test also failed to identify statistical significance between the groups for the thromboembolic complication rate, but groups I and II had lower bleeding complication rates that did groups III and IV. Conclusion: The thromboembolic complication rate was not statistically different between groups I and II and groups III and IV, but the bleeding complication rates of groups I and II were lower than those of groups III and IV. So this outcome encouraged us to continue using our low intensive anticoagulation regime, that is, an INR of 1.5 to 2.5. 배경: 기계 심장판막 대치술 후 발생하는 혈전성 합병증을 방지하기 위해 항응고제 치료로써 와파린을 환자에게 투여한다. 이때 환자에 따른 적절한 와파린 용량을 결정하기 위한 지표로서 INR을 참고하는데 통상 대동맥판막은 $2.0{\sim}3.0$, 승모판막은 $2.5{\sim}3.5$가 참고치로서 받아들여지고 있다. 하지만 임상 경험상 대부분의 환자에서 이 수치로 유지하였을때 출혈성 합병증(비출혈, 혈뇨, 자궁출혈, 뇌출혈 등)이 빈번하게 발생하여 참고치보다 더 낮게 유지하는 경우가 많다. 이에 본원에서는 기계 심장판막 환자들을 후향적으로 조사하여 혈전성 합병증의 빈도가 낮은 적정한 INR을 알아보고자 한다. 대상 및 방법: 1984년 1월부터 2007년 2월까지 이엽성 기계 심장판막 대치술을 받고 생존한 311명의 환자를 대상으로 후향적으로 조사하였다. 대동맥판막치환 환자들(60명)은 INR $1.5{\sim}2.0$ (1군), $2.0{\sim}2.5$ (2군), 2.5 (3군) 이상의 세 군으로 나누고 승모판막치환(171명)이나 승모판막과 대동맥판막을 동시에 치환한 환자들(80명)은 INR $1.5{\sim}2.0$ (1군), $2.0{\sim}2.5$ (2군), $2.5{\sim}3.0$ (3군), 3.0 (4군) 이상의 네군으로 나누어 혈전성 합병증 발생률, 중요출혈성합병증 발생률을 조사하여 각각의 생존함수를 비교하였다. 결과: 대동맥 판막치환 환자 중 혈전성 합병증은 2명, 출혈성합병증은 4명이 발생하였고 세군의 혈전성 합병증의 생존함수의 차이는 관찰되지 않았고 출혈성 합병증의 생존곡선에서 1, 2군과 3군의 차이가 관찰되었다. 승모판막치환이나 승모판막과 대동맥판막을 동시에 치환한 환자들 중 혈전성 합병증은 13명, 출혈성 합병증은 15명이 발생하였고 네 군의 혈전성 합병증의 생존함수의 차이는 관찰되지 않았고 출혈성 합병증은 1, 2군과 3, 4군에서 차이를 보였다. 결론: 모든 판막에서 INR이 $1.5{\sim}2.5$ (1군과 2군)로 유지한 환자들이 그 이상으로 유지한 환자들보다 혈전성 합병증에서 차이를 보이지 않았고 출혈성 합병증에서 유의하게 감소하는 양상을 보여 이엽성 기계판막에서 적정한 INR은 $1.5{\sim}2.5$로 유지하는 것이 바람직하다고 판단된다.</abstract><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0301-2859
ispartof Taehan Hyungbu Oekwa Hakhoe chi, 2008, Vol.41 (4), p.430-438
issn 0301-2859
language kor
recordid cdi_kisti_ndsl_JAKO200828939702953
source KoreaMed Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
title 이엽성 기게 심장판막 환자에 대한 낮은 강도의 항응고제 요법의 결과에 대한 임상분석
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T21%3A12%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-kisti&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=%EC%9D%B4%EC%97%BD%EC%84%B1%20%EA%B8%B0%EA%B2%8C%20%EC%8B%AC%EC%9E%A5%ED%8C%90%EB%A7%89%20%ED%99%98%EC%9E%90%EC%97%90%20%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%20%EB%82%AE%EC%9D%80%20%EA%B0%95%EB%8F%84%EC%9D%98%20%ED%95%AD%EC%9D%91%EA%B3%A0%EC%A0%9C%20%EC%9A%94%EB%B2%95%EC%9D%98%20%EA%B2%B0%EA%B3%BC%EC%97%90%20%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%20%EC%9E%84%EC%83%81%EB%B6%84%EC%84%9D&rft.jtitle=Taehan%20Hyungbu%20Oekwa%20Hakhoe%20chi&rft.au=%EC%A0%95%EC%84%B1%EC%B2%A0&rft.date=2008&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=430&rft.epage=438&rft.pages=430-438&rft.issn=0301-2859&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Ckisti%3EJAKO200828939702953%3C/kisti%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true