Key result
Lower INR ranges are not linked to less bleeding vs higher ranges in mechanical heart valves.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to examine the impact of different therapeutic INR ranges on anticoagulation control and clinical outcomes in patients with mechanical heart valves treated with vitamin K antagonists in the Netherlands.
Do lower therapeutic INR ranges improve anticoagulation control and reduce bleeding without increasing thromboembolic risk in patients with mechanical heart valves treated with vitamin K antagonists?
Cohort (n=3,473)
Yes
Do lower therapeutic INR ranges improve anticoagulation control and reduce bleeding without increasing thromboembolic risk in patients with mechanical heart valves treated with vitamin K antagonists?
Effect estimate: aHR 0.80 (95% CI 0.57-1.1)
Absolute Event Rate: 2.5% vs 3.6%
In patients with mechanical heart valves, lower therapeutic INR ranges do not reduce bleeding risk and may increase thromboembolic risk in those with non-aortic valves or additional risk factors.
To examine the impact of different therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) ranges on anticoagulation control and clinical outcomes in patients with mechanical heart valves (MHVs) treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in the Netherlands. Data from 17 anticoagulation clinics (2013–2019) were linked to nation-wide data from Statistics Netherlands. Anticoagulation control metrics included significant dose adjustments, INR variance growth rate, and time in therapeutic range. Cause-specific Cox regression models were used to assess associations between therapeutic ranges and clinical outcomes, accounting for death as competing risk. Stratified analyses were performed for significant interactions by type of MHV recipient. Among 3,473 MHV patients (median age: 67.0 [IQR: 58.0-76.0], 61.7% male, 68.2% acenocoumarol, 26.5% phenprocoumon), patients with lower therapeutic ranges (N = 1,866) (2.0–3.0 for isolated aortic valve without risk factors; 2.5–3.5 for all remaining MHV patients) had poorer anticoagulation control compared to those with higher ranges (N = 1,607) (2.5–3.5 and 3.0–4.0, respectively). No association was found between therapeutic ranges and major/clinically relevant bleeding (fully adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.80 [95%CI: 0.57–1.1]). However, in patients with a non-aortic valve and/or additional risk factors a lower therapeutic range was potentially associated with increased thromboembolic risk (aHR: 1.3 [95%CI: 0.94–1.9]), while no association was observed in patients with an isolated aortic valve (aHR: 0.71 [95%CI: 0.38–1.3]). A lower therapeutic range does not apparently increase thromboembolic risk in most MHV patients but may be associated with a higher thromboembolic risk in higher risk patients. Lower therapeutic ranges were not associated with lower bleeding risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Visser et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Mechanical heart valve (MHV) treated with vitamin K antagonists (n=3,473). Lower therapeutic INR ranges vs. Higher therapeutic INR ranges (2.5-3.5 for isolated aortic valve; 3.0-4.0 for all remaining MHV patients) was evaluated on Major and clinically relevant bleeding (aHR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57-1.1). Lower therapeutic INR ranges were not significantly associated with a reduction in major or clinically relevant bleeding (aHR 0.80) compared to higher ranges in patients with mechanical heart valves.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: