BACKGROUND: An increasing number of patients are treated with warfarin worldwide, and many are monitored in general practice, often with office instruments. Bleeding or thromboembolic episodes may be consequences of inadequate treatment. We have therefore examined some important aspects of general practitioners' (GPs') knowledge of warfarin treatment. METHODS: A questionnaire including 2 case histories with familiar indications for warfarin treatment (mechanical heart valve prosthesis and pulmonary embolism) was circulated to 3781 GPs in Norway as a postanalytical quality assessment. RESULTS: A total of 1547 GPs (41%) responded. There were substantial variations among GPs concerning the frequency of international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring, stated therapeutic ranges for arterial (but not venous) indications for anticoagulation therapy, and handling of a moderately high INR result of 5.9. Most GPs estimated an unrealistically high risk of serious bleeding in the latter situation (median, 15%; 10th and 90th percentiles, 4% and 50%, respectively). The critical difference necessary to change the warfarin dose was highly dependent on perceived therapeutic intervals, and about half of the GPs suggested a critical difference of 0.8 INR, which is attainable with office instruments. Sex and age of the GPs, practice size, and availability of an INR instrument in the office laboratory did not influence the results to any substantial degree, as variations within subgroups were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Gross variations in practice were found, especially for aspects of warfarin treatment that lacked uniform guidelines. Evidence-based and practicable recommendations for treatment and monitoring of these patients are still needed.
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of patients are treated with warfarin worldwide, and many are monitored in general practice, often with office instruments. Bleeding or thromboembolic episodes may be consequences of inadequate treatment. We have therefore examined some important aspects of general practitioners' (GPs') knowledge of warfarin treatment. METHODS: A questionnaire including 2 case histories with familiar indications for warfarin treatment (mechanical heart valve prosthesis and pulmonary embolism) was circulated to 3781 GPs in Norway as a postanalytical quality assessment. RESULTS: A total of 1547 GPs (41%) responded. There were substantial variations among GPs concerning the frequency of international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring, stated therapeutic ranges for arterial (but not venous) indications for anticoagulation therapy, and handling of a moderately high INR result of 5.9. Most GPs estimated an unrealistically high risk of serious bleeding in the latter situation (median, 15%; 10th and 90th percentiles, 4% and 50%, respectively). The critical difference necessary to change the warfarin dose was highly dependent on perceived therapeutic intervals, and about half of the GPs suggested a critical difference of 0.8 INR, which is attainable with office instruments. Sex and age of the GPs, practice size, and availability of an INR instrument in the office laboratory did not influence the results to any substantial degree, as variations within subgroups were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Gross variations in practice were found, especially for aspects of warfarin treatment that lacked uniform guidelines. Evidence-based and practicable recommendations for treatment and monitoring of these patients are still needed.
Authors: Reyes Serrano Teruel; Geir Thue; Svein Ivar Fylkesnes; Sverre Sandberg; Ann Helen Kristoffersen Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 2.581