ArticleDigital health
Enhancing postoperative anticoagulation therapy with remote patient monitoring: A pilot crossover trial study to evaluate portable coagulometers and chatbots in cardiac surgery follow-up.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A single-center study on prosthesis selection strategy in aortic valve replacement for patients aged 50-65 years.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Chatbot-Supported Remote Patient Monitoring for Anticoagulation Management: Health Economic Evaluation Within a Pilot Crossover Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Effect of internet plus nursing mode telehealth intervention on warfarin management in atrial fibrillation patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Remote Monitoring Model Based on Artificial Intelligence to Optimize DOAC Therapy: A Working Hypothesis for Safer Anticoagulation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Strategies for Enhancing Anticoagulation Adherence in Adult Patients After Cardiac Valve Replacement: An Evidence-Based Summary.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Prior research has not assessed the value of remote patient monitoring (RPM) systems for patients undergoing anticoagulation therapy after cardiac surgery. This study aims to assess whether the clinical follow-up through RPM yields comparable outcomes with the standard protocol. Methods: A crossover trial assigned participants to SOC-RPM or RPM-SOC, starting with the standard of care (SOC) for the first 6 months after surgery and using RPM for the following 6 months, or vice-versa, respectively. During RPM, patients used the Coaguchek Results: Twenty-seven patients participated. The median time in therapeutic range (TTR) levels during RPM were 72.2% and 50.6% for the SOC-RPM and RPM-SOC arms, respectively, and during SOC, they were 49.4% and 58.4% for SOC-RPM and RPM-SOC arms, respectively. Patients and the clinical team reported high trust and satisfaction with the proposed digital service. Statistically significant differences were only found in the cost of RPM in the RPM-SOC, which was higher than SOC in the SOC-RPM arm. Conclusions: Portable coagulometers and chatbots can enhance the remote management of patients undergoing anticoagulation therapy, improving patient experience. This presents a promising alternative to the current standard procedure. The results of this study seem to suggest that RPM may have a higher value when initiated after a SOC period rather than starting RPM immediately after surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.