+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Reexamining the recommended follow-up interval after obtaining an in-range international normalized ratio value: results from the Veterans Affairs study to improve anticoagulation



Reexamining the recommended follow-up interval after obtaining an in-range international normalized ratio value: results from the Veterans Affairs study to improve anticoagulation



Chest 140(2): 359-365



Patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy should be tested often enough to optimize control, but excessive testing increases burden and cost. We examined the relationship between follow-up intervals after obtaining an in-range (2.0-3.0) international normalized ratio (INR) and anticoagulation control. We studied 104,451 patients who were receiving anticoagulation therapy from 100 anticoagulation clinics in the US Veterans Health Administration. Most patients (98,877) had at least one in-range INR followed by another INR within 56 days. For each such patient, we selected the last in-range INR and characterized the interval between this index value and the next INR. The independent variable was the site mean follow-up interval after obtaining an in-range INR. The dependent variable was the site mean risk-adjusted percentage of time in the therapeutic range (TTR). The site mean follow-up interval varied from 25 to 38 days. As the site mean follow-up interval became longer, the risk-adjusted TTR was worse (-0.51% per day, P = .004). This relationship persisted when the index value was the first consecutive in-range INR (-0.63%, P < .001) or the second (-0.58%, P < .001), but not the third or greater (-0.12%, P = .46). Sites varied widely regarding follow-up intervals after obtaining an in-range INR (25-38 days). Shorter intervals were generally associated with better anticoagulation control, but after obtaining a third consecutive in-range value, this relationship was greatly attenuated and no longer statistically significant. Our results suggest that a maximum interval of 28 days after obtaining the first or second in-range value and consideration of a longer interval after obtaining the third or greater consecutive in-range value may be appropriate.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 055435144

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 21310837

DOI: 10.1378/chest.10-2738


Related references

Risk-adjusted percent time in therapeutic range as a quality indicator for outpatient oral anticoagulation: results of the Veterans Affairs Study to Improve Anticoagulation (VARIA). Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 4(1): 22-29, 2011

Patient characteristics associated with oral anticoagulation control: results of the Veterans AffaiRs Study to Improve Anticoagulation (VARIA). Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 8(10): 2182-2191, 2010

INR targets and site-level anticoagulation control: results from the Veterans AffaiRs Study to Improve Anticoagulation (VARIA). Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 10(4): 590-595, 2012

The influence of patient adherence on anticoagulation control with warfarin: results from the International Normalized Ratio Adherence and Genetics (IN-RANGE) Study. Archives of Internal Medicine 167(3): 229-235, 2007

Identifying major hemorrhage with automated data: results of the Veterans Affairs study to improve anticoagulation (VARIA). Thrombosis Research 131(1): 31-36, 2013

Time in Therapeutic Range and Percentage of International Normalized Ratio in the Therapeutic Range as a Measure of Quality of Anticoagulation Control in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation. Canadian Journal of Cardiology 32(10): 1247.E23-1247.E28, 2016

Identifying potential predictors of high-quality oral anticoagulation assessed by time in therapeutic international normalized ratio range: a prospective, long-term, single-center, observational study. Clinical Therapeutics 34(7): 1511-1520, 2012

The optimal range of international normalized ratio for radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation during therapeutic anticoagulation with warfarin. Circulation. Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology 6(2): 302-309, 2013

Clinical predictors of prolonged delay in return of the international normalized ratio to within the therapeutic range after excessive anticoagulation with warfarin. Annals of Internal Medicine 135(6): 393-400, 2001

Improving quality measurement for anticoagulation: adding international normalized ratio variability to percent time in therapeutic range. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 7(5): 664-669, 2014

SAMeTT(2)R(2) does not predict time in therapeutic range of the international normalized ratio in patients attending a high-quality anticoagulation clinic. Chest 145(1): 187-188, 2014

A study on anticoagulation for cardiovascular diseases using international normalized ratio (INR). Kyobu Geka. Japanese Journal of Thoracic Surgery 49(12): 997, 1996

A comparison of anticoagulation results of patients managed with narrow vs. standard international normalized ratio target ranges. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 5(6): 1332-1334, 2007

Can we predict daily adherence to warfarin?: Results from the International Normalized Ratio Adherence and Genetics (IN-RANGE) Study. Chest 137(4): 883-889, 2010

International normalized ratio and anticoagulation. Archives of Internal Medicine 163(10): 1242-3; Author Reply 1244, 2003