BACKGROUND: Improved control of oral anticoagulation reduces adverse events. A program of quality measurement is needed for oral anticoagulation. The interval until the next test after an out-of-range International Normalized Ratio (INR) value (the "follow-up interval") could serve as a process of care measure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 104 451 patients cared for by 100 anticoagulation clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). For each site, we computed the average follow-up interval after low (≤1.5) or high (≥4.0) INR. Our outcome was each site's average anticoagulation control, measured by percent time in therapeutic range (TTR); 59 837 patients (57%) contributed to the low INR analysis, 37 697 (36%) contributed to the high INR analysis, and all patients contributed to the dependent variable (mean site TTR). After a low INR, site mean follow-up interval ranged from 10 to 24 days. Longer follow-up intervals were associated with worse site-level control (1.04% lower for each additional day, P<0.001). After a high INR, site mean follow-up interval ranged from 6 to 18 days, with longer follow-up intervals associated with worse site-level control (1.12% lower for each additional day, P<0.001). These relationships were somewhat attenuated but still highly statistically significant when the proportion of INR values in-range was used as the dependent variable rather than TTR. CONCLUSIONS: Prompt repeat testing after out-of-range INR values is associated with better anticoagulation control at the site level and could be an important part of a quality improvement effort for oral anticoagulation.
BACKGROUND: Improved control of oral anticoagulation reduces adverse events. A program of quality measurement is needed for oral anticoagulation. The interval until the next test after an out-of-range International Normalized Ratio (INR) value (the "follow-up interval") could serve as a process of care measure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 104 451 patients cared for by 100 anticoagulation clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). For each site, we computed the average follow-up interval after low (≤1.5) or high (≥4.0) INR. Our outcome was each site's average anticoagulation control, measured by percent time in therapeutic range (TTR); 59 837 patients (57%) contributed to the low INR analysis, 37 697 (36%) contributed to the high INR analysis, and all patients contributed to the dependent variable (mean site TTR). After a low INR, site mean follow-up interval ranged from 10 to 24 days. Longer follow-up intervals were associated with worse site-level control (1.04% lower for each additional day, P<0.001). After a high INR, site mean follow-up interval ranged from 6 to 18 days, with longer follow-up intervals associated with worse site-level control (1.12% lower for each additional day, P<0.001). These relationships were somewhat attenuated but still highly statistically significant when the proportion of INR values in-range was used as the dependent variable rather than TTR. CONCLUSIONS: Prompt repeat testing after out-of-range INR values is associated with better anticoagulation control at the site level and could be an important part of a quality improvement effort for oral anticoagulation.
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: Daniel M Witt; Robby Nieuwlaat; Nathan P Clark; Jack Ansell; Anne Holbrook; Jane Skov; Nadine Shehab; Juliet Mock; Tarra Myers; Francesco Dentali; Mark A Crowther; Arnav Agarwal; Meha Bhatt; Rasha Khatib; John J Riva; Yuan Zhang; Gordon Guyatt Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2018-11-27
Authors: David B Matchar; Sean R Love; Alan K Jacobson; Robert Edson; Lauren Uyeda; Ciaran S Phibbs; Rowena J Dolor Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Daniel E Singer; Anne S Hellkamp; Jonathan P Piccini; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Yuliya Lokhnygina; Guohua Pan; Jonathan L Halperin; Richard C Becker; Günter Breithardt; Graeme J Hankey; Werner Hacke; Christopher C Nessel; Manesh R Patel; Robert M Califf; Keith A A Fox Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 5.501