Warfarin: time in therapeutic range, a single centre study on patients using warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation and prosthetic heart valves
{"title":"Warfarin: time in therapeutic range, a single centre study on patients using warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation and prosthetic heart valves","authors":"D. Sadhabiriss","doi":"10.24170/18-1-4771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Two common indications for oral anticoagulants are patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) or prosthetic heart valves (PHV). The degree of anticoagulation is monitored by evaluating the international normalised ratio (INR); however, the quality of anticoagulation, determined by the time in therapeutic range (TTR), is less often evaluated. TTR has significant clinical implications in patient outcomes. \nObjectives: We sought to identify the indications for anticoagulation and determine its quality via the TTR at a single centre, community-based and district level hospital in the setting of usual care. We documented the prevalence of thrombo-embolic and haemorrhagic adverse events and we also collected data on factors that may contribute to a poor TTR or increased risk of adverse events. \nMethods: We conducted a retrospective, descriptive and observational study with chart audits evaluating the anticoagulation indication and control for the preceding 1 year for each patient. Descriptive statistics included mean and standard deviation for quantitative data and frequencies for categorical data. Chi-square tests were used to analyse comparisons of categorical data and the student’s t-test for continuous variables. Two-tailed p-values less than 0.05 were considered significant. \nResults: TTR was poor for patients with AF and PHV (44.5% and 13.7% respectively). We identified older age, less frequent testing and high target ranges as significant factors associated with poorer outcomes. We demonstrated a high prevalence of adverse events (25.4%). \nConclusion: Patients in this setting demonstrated poor quality of anticoagulation and had a high prevalence of adverse events.","PeriodicalId":55781,"journal":{"name":"SA Heart Journal","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SA Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24170/18-1-4771","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Background: Two common indications for oral anticoagulants are patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) or prosthetic heart valves (PHV). The degree of anticoagulation is monitored by evaluating the international normalised ratio (INR); however, the quality of anticoagulation, determined by the time in therapeutic range (TTR), is less often evaluated. TTR has significant clinical implications in patient outcomes.
Objectives: We sought to identify the indications for anticoagulation and determine its quality via the TTR at a single centre, community-based and district level hospital in the setting of usual care. We documented the prevalence of thrombo-embolic and haemorrhagic adverse events and we also collected data on factors that may contribute to a poor TTR or increased risk of adverse events.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective, descriptive and observational study with chart audits evaluating the anticoagulation indication and control for the preceding 1 year for each patient. Descriptive statistics included mean and standard deviation for quantitative data and frequencies for categorical data. Chi-square tests were used to analyse comparisons of categorical data and the student’s t-test for continuous variables. Two-tailed p-values less than 0.05 were considered significant.
Results: TTR was poor for patients with AF and PHV (44.5% and 13.7% respectively). We identified older age, less frequent testing and high target ranges as significant factors associated with poorer outcomes. We demonstrated a high prevalence of adverse events (25.4%).
Conclusion: Patients in this setting demonstrated poor quality of anticoagulation and had a high prevalence of adverse events.