Key result
Rivaroxaban shows similar clinical outcomes in AF patients across varying INR levels.
Why the study?
What factors determine the prothrombin time (PT/INR) in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving rivaroxaban?
Observational (n=69)
What factors determine the prothrombin time (PT/INR) in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving rivaroxaban?
In patients with atrial fibrillation taking rivaroxaban, PT/INR prolongation is influenced by clinical variables such as AF pattern, renal function, and stroke history, but different INR values do not appear to correlate with different clinical outcomes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
INR prolongation on rivaroxaban links to AF pattern and renal function without outcome differences; leaves open whether INR monitoring adds value in AF.
Rivaroxaban, a direct factor Xa inhibitor, is widely used to reduce the chance of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). It is not clear why the prothrombin time (PT) of the international normalized ratio (INR) fails to correlate with treatment using rivaroxaban in patients with AF. In this study, patient characteristics, the rivaroxaban dosage, AF type, drug history, biochemical properties, and hematological profiles were assessed in patients treated with rivaroxaban. In 69 patients with AF receiving rivaroxaban, 27 (39.1%) patients had a normal INR (≤1.1, group 1), 27 (39.1%) patients had a slightly prolonged INR (1.1∼1.5, group 2), and 15 (21.7%) patients had a significantly prolonged INR (>1.5, group 3). Group 1 patients had a higher incidence of a stroke history than did patients in group 2 ( P = .026) and group 3 ( P = .032). We scored patients with a persistent AF pattern (1 point), paroxysmal AF pattern (0 point), renal function (ie, the creatinine clearance rate in mL/min/1.73 m 2 of >60 as 0 points, of 30∼60 as 1 point, and of <30 as 2 points), and no history of stroke (1 point), and we found that group 3 had a higher score than groups 2 or 1 (2.9 ± 0.8, 2.4 ± 0.7, and 2 ± 0.7, respectively; P < .05). There were similar incidences of bleeding, stroke, and unexpected hospitalizations among the 3 groups. The PT of the INR is determined by multiple variables in patients with AF receiving rivaroxaban. Rivaroxaban-treated patients with AF having different INR values may have similar clinical outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Atrial Fibrillation (n=69). Rivaroxaban vs. Different INR groups (≤1.1, 1.1-1.5, >1.5) was evaluated on Factors determining prothrombin time (PT) of the INR and clinical outcomes (p=<.05). In patients with atrial fibrillation receiving rivaroxaban, INR values were determined by multiple variables including AF pattern and renal function, but different INR groups had similar outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: