OBJECTIVES: To explore the thrombin generation capacity in patients on warfarin therapy with different prothrombin time international normalized ratio (PT-INR), the capacity in relation to bleeding, and the application of thrombin generation tests to warfarin therapy monitoring. METHODS: Seventy eight blood samples were taken from patients on warfarin therapy for more than 3 months owing to valve replacement or atrial fibrillation. The patients' case history and PT-INR were collected and thrombin generation tests were performed in all samples. RESULTS: Patients were ranked into three groups according to different PT-INR. There were 23 patients in group I with PT-INR from 1.51 to 2.00, 39 patients in group II with PT-INR from 2.01 to 3.00, and 16 patients in group III with PT-INR from 3.01 to 4.26. There were significant differences between each two of the three groups in lag time, peak, and ttpeak (time to peak) (P <0.01). There was a significant difference between group I and group II in endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) (P = 0.0001), but not between group II and group III (P= 0.06). Five patients developed bleeding and their ETP was less than 15% of normal control. CONCLUSION: In patients on warfarin therapy, when the PT-INR was more than 3.0, increasing the dose of warfarin doesn' t decrease the thrombin generation, but increase bleeding risk. PT-INR combined with ETP may better reflect patient's coagulation status, therefore be of more significance in preventing bleeding.
OBJECTIVES: To explore the thrombin generation capacity in patients on warfarin therapy with different prothrombin time international normalized ratio (PT-INR), the capacity in relation to bleeding, and the application of thrombin generation tests to warfarin therapy monitoring. METHODS: Seventy eight blood samples were taken from patients on warfarin therapy for more than 3 months owing to valve replacement or atrial fibrillation. The patients' case history and PT-INR were collected and thrombin generation tests were performed in all samples. RESULTS:Patients were ranked into three groups according to different PT-INR. There were 23 patients in group I with PT-INR from 1.51 to 2.00, 39 patients in group II with PT-INR from 2.01 to 3.00, and 16 patients in group III with PT-INR from 3.01 to 4.26. There were significant differences between each two of the three groups in lag time, peak, and ttpeak (time to peak) (P <0.01). There was a significant difference between group I and group II in endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) (P = 0.0001), but not between group II and group III (P= 0.06). Five patients developed bleeding and their ETP was less than 15% of normal control. CONCLUSION: In patients on warfarin therapy, when the PT-INR was more than 3.0, increasing the dose of warfarin doesn' t decrease the thrombin generation, but increase bleeding risk. PT-INR combined with ETP may better reflect patient's coagulation status, therefore be of more significance in preventing bleeding.