4.6 Article

Risks of stroke and mortality associated with suboptimal anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation patients

期刊

THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 106, 期 5, 页码 968-977

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1160/TH11-05-0353

关键词

Atrial fibrillation; anticoagulation; stroke; treatment; warfarin

资金

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (BI)
  2. MHRA, Medical Research Council
  3. GlaxoSmithKline
  4. Novo Nordisk
  5. Top Institute Pharma
  6. Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board
  7. Dutch Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Atrial fibrillation (AF) carries an increased risk of ischaemic stroke, and oral anticoagulation with warfarin can reduce this risk. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between time in therapeutic International Normalised Ratio (INR) range when receiving warfarin and the risk of stroke and mortality. The study cohort included AF patients aged 40 years and older included in the UK General Practice Research Database. For patients treated with warfarin we computed the percentage of follow-up time spent within therapeutic range. Cox regression was used to assess the association between INR and outcomes while controlling for patient demographics, health status and concomitant medication. The study population included 27,458 warfarin-treated (with at least 3 INR measurements) and 10,449 patients treated with antithrombotic therapy. Overall the warfarin users spent 63% of their time within therapeutic range (TTR). This percentage did not vary substantially by age, sex and CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score. Patients who spent at least 70% of time within therapeutic range had a 79% reduced risk of stroke compared to patients with <= 30% of time in range (adjusted relative rate of 0.21; 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.25). Mortality rates were also significantly lower with at least 70% of time spent within therapeutic range. In conclusion, good anticoagulation control was associated with a reduction in the risk of stroke.

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