Cardiovascular magnetic resonance of left ventricular pseudoaneurysm

Objective: To evaluate how well patients with non-valvar atrial fibrillation (NVAF) were maintained within the recommended international normalised ratio (INR) target of 2.0–3.0 and to explore the relation between achieved INR control and clinical outcomes. Design: Record linkage study of routine activity records and INR measurements. Setting: Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, UK. Participants: 2223 patients with NVAF, no history of heart valve replacement, and with at least five INR measurements. Main outcome measures: Mortality, ischaemic stroke, all thromboembolic events, bleeding events, hospitalisation, and patterns of INR monitoring. Results: Patients treated with warfarin were outside the INR target range 32.1% of the time, with 15.4% INR values > 3.0 and 16.7% INR values < 2.0. However, the quartile with worst control spent 71.6% of their time out of target range compared with only 16.3% out of range in the best controlled quartile. The median period between INR tests was 16 days. Time spent outside the target range decreased as the duration of INR monitoring increased, from 52% in the first three months of monitoring to 30% after two years. A multivariate logistic regression model showed that a 10% increase in time out of range was associated with an increased risk of mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.29, p < 0.001) and of an ischaemic stroke (OR 1.10, p  =  0.006) and other thromboembolic events (OR 1.12, p < 0.001). The rate of hospitalisation was higher when INR was outside the target range. Conclusions: Suboptimal anticoagulation was associated with poor clinical outcomes, even in a well controlled population. However, good control was difficult to achieve and maintain. New measures are needed to improve maintenance anticoagulation in patients with NVAF.

[1]  G. Lip,et al.  Antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  D. Fitzmaurice,et al.  Recommendations for patients undertaking self management of oral anticoagulation , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  H. Mcelroy,et al.  Guidelines on anticoagulant treatment in atrial fibrillation in Great Britain: variation in content and implications for treatment , 1998, BMJ.

[4]  Heather L. Heiman,et al.  Contributions Acetaminophen and Other Risk Factors for Excessive Warfarin Anticoagulation , 2001 .

[5]  J. Peters,et al.  Patterns and costs of hospital care for coronary heart disease related and not related to diabetes , 1997, Heart.

[6]  F R Rosendaal,et al.  A Method to Determine the Optimal Intensity of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy , 1993, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

[7]  Carl van Walraven,et al.  Oral anticoagulants vs aspirin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: an individual patient meta-analysis. , 2002, JAMA.

[8]  D. Fitzmaurice,et al.  Does the Birmingham model of oral anticoagulation management in primary care work outside trial conditions? , 2001, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[9]  Leandro Provinciali,et al.  Secondary prevention in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke , 1993 .

[10]  M. Šabovič,et al.  Intensity of Long-Term Treatment with Warfarin Is Influenced by Seasonal Variations , 2002, Pathophysiology of Haemostasis and Thrombosis.

[11]  D. Anderson,et al.  Comparing the quality of oral anticoagulant management by anticoagulation clinics and by family physicians: a randomized controlled trial. , 2003, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[12]  Valentin Fuster,et al.  American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Foundation guide to warfarin therapy. , 2003, Circulation.

[13]  J. McMurray,et al.  Cost of an emerging epidemic: an economic analysis of atrial fibrillation in the UK , 2004, Heart.

[14]  M. Prins,et al.  Oral anticoagulation self-management and management by a specialist anticoagulation clinic: a randomised cross-over comparison , 2000, The Lancet.

[15]  L. Kalra,et al.  Prospective cohort study to determine if trial efficacy of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation translates into clinical effectiveness , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  R. Hatala,et al.  Anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation: Why is the treatment rate so low? , 2002, Clinical cardiology.

[17]  M. Goldacre,et al.  Computerised linking of medical records: methodological guidelines. , 1993, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[18]  L. Gill,et al.  Epidemiology and costs of acute hospital care for cerebrovascular disease in diabetic and nondiabetic populations. , 1997, Stroke.

[19]  Ralph B D'Agostino,et al.  A risk score for predicting stroke or death in individuals with new-onset atrial fibrillation in the community: the Framingham Heart Study. , 2003, JAMA.

[20]  M. Prins,et al.  Comparison of Three Methods to Assess Therapeutic Quality Control of Treatment with Vitamin K Antagonists , 1999, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

[21]  G. Lip,et al.  Antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.