4.6 Article

INR variability and outcomes in patients with mechanical heart valve prosthesis

期刊

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
卷 136, 期 6, 页码 1211-1215

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2015.10.044

关键词

Mechanical heart valve prostheses; International Normalized Ratio; Variability; Warfarin

资金

  1. Anna and Edwin Bergers Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The quality of treatment with warfarin is mainly assessed by the time in therapeutic range (TTR) in patients with mechanical heart valve prosthesis (MHV). Our aim was to evaluate if International Normalized Ratio (INR) variability predicted a combined endpoint of thromboembolism, major bleeding and death better than TTR. Methods and results: We included 394 patients at one center with MHV during 2008-2011 with adverse events and death followed prospectively. TTR 2.0-4.0 and log-transformed INR variability was calculated for all patients. In order to make comparisons between the measures, the gradient of the risk per one standard deviation (SD) was assessed. INR variability performed equal as TTR 2.0-4.0 per one SD unit adjusted for covariates, hazard ratio (HR) 1.30 (95% CI 1.1-1.5) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.6-0.8) respectively for the combined endpoint, and performed better for mortality HR 1.47 (95% CI 1.1-1.9) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.6-0.8). INR variability was categorized into high and low group and TTR into tertiles. High variability within the low and high TTR, had a HR 2.0 (95% CI 1.7-3.6) and 2.2 (95% CI 1.1-4.1) respectively, of the combined endpoint compared to the low variability/high TTR group. INR values <2.0 greatly increased the rate of thromboembolism whereas the rate of major bleeding increased moderately between INR 3.0 and 4.0 and increased substantially after INR >4.0. Conclusion: The INR variability is an equal predictor as TTR of the combined endpoint of thromboembolism, major bleeding and death, and adds important information on top of TTR in patients with MHV. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据