BACKGROUND: Randomized trials and observational studies support using an international normalized ratio (INR) target of 2.0 to 3.0 for preventing ischemic stroke in atrial fibrillation. We assessed whether the INR target should be adjusted based on selected patient characteristics. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a case-control study nested within the ATRIA cohort's 9217 atrial fibrillation patients taking warfarin to define the relationship between INR level and the odds of thromboembolism (TE; mainly stroke) and of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) relative to INR 2.0 to 2.5. We identified 396 TE cases and 164 ICH cases during follow-up. Each case was compared with 4 randomly selected controls matched on calendar date and stroke risk factors using matched univariable analyses and conditional logistic regression. We explored modification of the INR-outcome relationships by the following stroke risk factors: prior stroke, age, and CHADS(2) risk score. Overall, the odds of TE were low and stable above INR 1.8. Compared with INR 2.0 to 2.5, the relative odds of TE increased strikingly at INR <1.8 (eg, odds ratio, 3.72; 95% CI, 2.67 to 5.19, at INR 1.4 to 1.7). The odds of ICH increased markedly at INR values >3.5 (eg, odds ratio, 3.56; 95% CI: 1.70 to 7.46, at INR 3.6 to 4.5). The relative odds of ICH were consistently low at INR <3.6. There was no evidence of lower ICH risk at INR levels <2.0. These patterns of risk did not differ substantially by history of stroke, age, or CHADS(2) risk score. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that the current standard of INR 2.0 to 3.0 for atrial fibrillation falls in the optimal INR range. Our findings do not support adjustment of INR targets according to previously defined stroke risk factors.
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials and observational studies support using an international normalized ratio (INR) target of 2.0 to 3.0 for preventing ischemic stroke in atrial fibrillation. We assessed whether the INR target should be adjusted based on selected patient characteristics. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a case-control study nested within the ATRIA cohort's 9217 atrial fibrillationpatients taking warfarin to define the relationship between INR level and the odds of thromboembolism (TE; mainly stroke) and of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) relative to INR 2.0 to 2.5. We identified 396 TE cases and 164 ICH cases during follow-up. Each case was compared with 4 randomly selected controls matched on calendar date and stroke risk factors using matched univariable analyses and conditional logistic regression. We explored modification of the INR-outcome relationships by the following stroke risk factors: prior stroke, age, and CHADS(2) risk score. Overall, the odds of TE were low and stable above INR 1.8. Compared with INR 2.0 to 2.5, the relative odds of TE increased strikingly at INR <1.8 (eg, odds ratio, 3.72; 95% CI, 2.67 to 5.19, at INR 1.4 to 1.7). The odds of ICH increased markedly at INR values >3.5 (eg, odds ratio, 3.56; 95% CI: 1.70 to 7.46, at INR 3.6 to 4.5). The relative odds of ICH were consistently low at INR <3.6. There was no evidence of lower ICH risk at INR levels <2.0. These patterns of risk did not differ substantially by history of stroke, age, or CHADS(2) risk score. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that the current standard of INR 2.0 to 3.0 for atrial fibrillation falls in the optimal INR range. Our findings do not support adjustment of INR targets according to previously defined stroke risk factors.
Authors: Natalie Oake; Alison Jennings; Alan J Forster; Dean Fergusson; Steve Doucette; Carl van Walraven Journal: CMAJ Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Brian F Gage; Carl van Walraven; Lesly Pearce; Robert G Hart; Peter J Koudstaal; B S P Boode; Palle Petersen Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-10-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Elaine M Hylek; Alan S Go; Yuchiao Chang; Nancy G Jensvold; Lori E Henault; Joe V Selby; Daniel E Singer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-09-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alan S Go; Elaine M Hylek; Yuchiao Chang; Kathleen A Phillips; Lori E Henault; Angela M Capra; Nancy G Jensvold; Joe V Selby; Daniel E Singer Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-11-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Yi Wan; Carl Heneghan; Rafael Perera; Nia Roberts; Jennifer Hollowell; Paul Glasziou; Clare Bankhead; Yongyong Xu Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2008-11-05
Authors: John J You; Daniel E Singer; Patricia A Howard; Deirdre A Lane; Mark H Eckman; Margaret C Fang; Elaine M Hylek; Sam Schulman; Alan S Go; Michael Hughes; Frederick A Spencer; Warren J Manning; Jonathan L Halperin; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Anne Holbrook; Sam Schulman; Daniel M Witt; Per Olav Vandvik; Jason Fish; Michael J Kovacs; Peter J Svensson; David L Veenstra; Mark Crowther; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Sharon Liu; Alexander Singer; Finlay A McAlister; William Peeler; Balraj S Heran; Neil Drummond; Donna P Manca; G Michael Allan; Christina Korownyk; Michael R Kolber; Michelle Greiver; Scott R Garrison Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Scott R Garrison; Lee Green; Michael R Kolber; Christina S Korownyk; Nicole M Olivier; Balraj S Heran; Mary E Flesher; G Michael Allan Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 5.166