PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 28, 2008Circulation876 citationsOpen Access

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

View Full Paper
SCStuart J. ConnollyJPJanice PogueJEJohn W. Eikelboom

Key Points

  • To determine how center- and country-level variation in time in therapeutic range (TTR) affects the efficacy of oral anticoagulation compared to dual antiplatelet therapy in atrial fibrillation.
  • Conducted a posthoc analysis of the randomized ACTIVE W trial comparing oral anticoagulation against clopidogrel plus aspirin across 526 centers in 15 countries.

Structured PICO

Does the benefit of oral anticoagulation over clopidogrel plus aspirin for preventing vascular events in atrial fibrillation depend on the time in therapeutic range (TTR)?

P
Population
Patients with atrial fibrillation from the ACTIVE W trial across 526 centers and 15 countries
I
Intervention
Oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy
C
Comparator
Clopidogrel plus aspirin
O
Outcome
Vascular eventshard clinical

The clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation over dual antiplatelet therapy in atrial fibrillation is highly dependent on achieving adequate INR control, with a target threshold TTR of at least 58% to 65% required for benefit.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy is effective in atrial fibrillation but requires vigilance to maintain the international normalized ratio in the therapeutic range. This report examines how differences in time in therapeutic range (TTR) between centers and between countries affect the outcomes of OAC therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a posthoc analysis, the TTRs of patients on OAC in a randomized trial of OAC versus clopidogrel plus aspirin (Atrial Fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial With Irbesartan for Prevention of Vascular Events ACTIVE W) were used to calculate the mean TTR for each of 526 centers and 15 countries. Proportional-hazards analysis, with and without adjustment for baseline variables, was performed, with patients stratified by TTR quartile and country. A wide variation in TTRs was found between centers, with mean TTRs for centers in the 4 quartiles of 44%, 60%, 69%, and 78%. For patients at centers below the median TTR (65%), no treatment benefit was demonstrated as measured by relative risk for vascular events of clopidogrel plus aspirin versus OAC (relative risk, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 1.24; P=0.61). However, for patients at centers with a TTR above the study median, OAC had a marked benefit, reducing vascular events by >2-fold (relative risk, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.61 to 2.85; P<0.0001). Mean TTR also varied between countries from 46% to 78%; relative risk (clopidogrel plus aspirin versus OAC) varied from 0.6 to 3.6 (a 5-fold difference). A population-average model predicted that a TTR of 58% would be needed to be confident that patients would benefit from being on OAC. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variation exists in international normalized ratio control, as measured by TTR, between clinical centers and between countries, which has a major impact on the treatment benefit of OAC therapy. For centers and countries, a target threshold TTR exists (estimated between 58% and 65%) below which there appears to be little benefit of OAC over antiplatelet therapy.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Connolly et al. (2008) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0fc47942b7486443fe5071https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.107.750000
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper