Abstract

Background: Anticoagulant control is assessed by Time in Therapeutic Range (TTR). For a given patient, TTR is defined as the duration of time in which the patient’s International Normalized Ratio (INR) values were within a desired range. Aim: To assess TTR in patients receiving anticoagulant treatment and the efficacy of Anticoagulant therapy in preventing Thromboembolism in Cardiac Patients receiving Warfarin for atrial fibrillation and with high CHADS VASC score, valvular and non-valvular heart disease at a referral center for cardiovascular diseases at Gaza Shifa Medical Complex, Palestine. Materials and Method: Over 8 months, we enrolled eligible patients presenting to Shifa Medical Complex in Gaza for regular INR testing. Demographic data, medical history, and current medications were determined for all participants. TTR was assessed by both tradition and cross-sectional methods. Results: A total of 46 patients (mean age 57.15±12.6 years, 50% women) underwent 230 INR measurements. The mean TTR was calculated as 50.86±21.37%. Participants of this study were assessed for their risk of having stroke using CHADS VASC score and risk of bleeding using HAS BLED score. Risk of stroke was significantly higher for females (P= 0.031). Of the sample patients, 47.8% were in the good control category (TTR >60%), and 52.2% were in the poor control category (TTR <60%). The mean TTR of the studied patients (54.9%) was below the good control range.There were 12 participants had thromboembolism of patients with low traditional TTR. This was statistically significant, TTR with occurrence of thromboembolism, (P= 0.001). Conclusion: We found a mean TTR of 50.86% among study patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation and high CHADS VASC score, valvular and non - valvular heart disease who were receiving warfarin therapy. None of the risk factor was significantly related to low TTR values among study participants. The study showed the low TTR was associated with increased risk of thromboembolism among participants in this study. Moreover, showed the superiority of tradition TTR over cross-sectional TTR in evaluating anticoagulant therapy.

References

1. Caldeira D, Cruz I, Morgado G, Stuart B, Gomes C, Martins C, et al. Evaluation of time in therapeutic range in anticoagulated patients:a single-center, retrospective, observational study. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:891.
2. Wigle P, Hein B, Bloomfield HE, Tubb M, Doherty M. Updated guidelines on outpatient anticoagulation. Am Fam Physician. 2013;87:556–566.
3. Zhu J, Alexander GC, Nazarian S, Segal JB, Wu AW. Trends and variation in oral anticoagulant choice in patients with atrial fibrillation 2010-2017. Pharmacotherapy. 2018;38:907–920.
4. Hirsh J, Fuster V, Ansell J, Halperin JL. American heart association/American college of cardiology foundation guide to warfarin therapy. Circulation. 2013;107:1692–1711.
5. Gateman D, Trojnar ME, Agarwal G. Time in therapeutic range:warfarin anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in a community-based practice. Can Fam Physician. 2017;63:e425–e431.
6. Farsad BF, Abbasinazari M, Dabagh A, Bakshandeh H. Evaluation of time in therapeutic range (TTR) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation receiving treatment with warfarin in Tehran, Iran:a cross-sectional study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:FC04–FC06.
7. Lip GYH, Banerjee A, Boriani G, Chiang CE, Fargo R, Freedman B, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation:CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2018;154:1121–1201.
8. Rosenstein R, Parra D. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(24):2334–5.
9. Meyer BJ. Time in therapeutic range for warfarin—a European success story. J Watch Cardiol. 2011 Oct 19; Available from: www.jwatch.org/jc201110190000001/2011/10/19/time-therapeutic-range-warfarin-european-success. Accessed 2021Oct19.
10. Van Walraven C, Jennings A, Oake N, Fergusson D, Forster AJ. Effect of study setting on anticoagulation control. Chest. 2016;129(5):1155–66.
11. Connolly S, Pogue J, Eikelboom J, Flaker G, Commerford P, Franzosi MG, et al. Benefit of oral anticoagulant over antiplatelet therapy in atrial fibrillation depends on the quality of international normalized ratio control achieved by centers and countries as measured by time in therapeutic range. Circulation. 2018;118(20):2029–37.
12. Razouki Z, Ozonoff A, Zhao S, Rose A. Pathways to poor anticoagulation control. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(5):628–34.
13. Rose AJ, Miller DR, Ozonoff A, Berlowitz DR, Ash AS, Zhao S, et al. Gaps in monitoring during oral anticoagulation: insights into care transitions, monitoring barriers, and medication nonadherence. Chest. 2012;143(3):751–7.
14. Witt DM, Delate T, Clark NP, Martell C, Tran T, Crowther MA, et al. Outcomes and predictors of very stable INR control during chronic anticoagulation therapy. Blood. 2019;114(5):952–6.
15. Rose AJ, Hylek EM, Ozonoff A, Ash AS, Reisman JI, Berlowitz DR. Patient characteristics associated with oral anticoagulation control: results of the Veterans AffaiRs Study to Improve Anticoagulation (VARIA) J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(10):2182–91.
16. Apostolakis S, Sullivan RM, Olshansky B, Lip GYH. Factors affecting quality of anticoagulation control among patients with atrial fibrillation on warfarin: the SAMe-TT R score. Chest. 2013;144(5):1555–63.
17. Kimmel SE, Chen Z, Price M, Parker CS, Metlay JP, Christie JD, et al. The influence of patient adherence on anticoagulation control with warfarin: results from the International Normalized Ratio Adherence and Genetics (IN-RANGE) study. Arch Intern Med. 2017;167(3):229–35.
18. Obamiro KO, Chalmers L, Bereznicki LR. A Summary of the literature evaluating adherence and persistence with oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2016 Jun 4.
19. Gallagher AM, Setakis E, Plumb JM, Clemens A, van Staa TP. Risks of stroke and mortality associated with suboptimal anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation patients. Thromb Haemost. 2011;106:968–77.
20. Wan Y, Heneghan C, Perera R, Roberts N, Hollowell J, Glasziou P, et al. Anticoagulation control and prediction of adverse events in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018;1:84–91.
21. Cotté FE, Benhaddi H, Duprat-Lomon I, Doble A, Marchant N, et al. Vitamin K antagonist treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation and time in therapeutic range in four European countries. Clin Ther. 2014;1(36):1160–68.
22. Mark L, Dani G, Vendrey R, Paragh G, Katona A. Oral anticoagulant therapy and bleeding events with vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation in a Hungarian county hospital. Med Sci Monit. 2015;17:518–25.
23. Zubaid M, Saad H, Ridha M, Mohanan Nair KK, Rashed W, Alhamdan R, et al. Quality of anticoagulation with warfarin across Kuwait. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2013;54:102–06.
24. Tan GM, Wu E, Lam YY, Yan BP. Role of warfarin pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice. Pharmacogenomics. 2010;11:439–48.
25. Nutescu E, Chuatrisorn I, Hellenbart E. Drug and dietary interactions of warfarin and novel oral anticoagulants: an update. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2011;31:326–43.
26. Aghajani MH, Sistanizad M, Abbasinazari M, Ghamsari MA, Ayazkhoo L, Saf O, et al. Potential drug-drug interactions in post-CCU of a teaching hospital. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2013;12:243–48.
27. Melamed OC, Horowitz G, Elhayany A, Vinker S. Quality of anticoagulation control among patients with atrial fibrillation. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17:232–37.
28. Zullig LL, Stechuchak KM, Goldstein KM, Olsen MK, McCant FM, Danus S, et al. Patient-reported medication adherence barriers among patients with cardiovascular risk factors. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2015;21:479–85.