February 12, 2007
Comparison of outcomes among patients randomized to warfarin therapy according to anticoagulant control: results from SPORTIF III and V.
Why the study?
Does good INR control improve clinical outcomes compared to poor INR control in patients with atrial fibrillation taking warfarin?
Population
3587 patients with atrial fibrillation randomized to receive warfarin treatment in the SPORTIF III and V…
Comparison
Warfarin therapy with good INR control vs Warfarin therapy with moderate or poor INR control
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
mean 16.6 +/- 6.3 months
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Poor INR control was associated with higher mortality and bleeding in AF on warfarin; leaves open whether TTR optimization improves outcomes.
Structured PICO
Does good INR control improve clinical outcomes compared to poor INR control in patients with atrial fibrillation taking warfarin?
P
Population
3587 patients with atrial fibrillation randomized to receive warfarin treatment in the SPORTIF III and V trials
I
Intervention
Warfarin therapy with good INR control (>75% time with INR 2.0-3.0)
C
Comparator
Warfarin therapy with moderate (60%-75%) or poor (<60%) INR control
O
Outcome
Death, bleeding, MI, and stroke or systemic embolism event (SEE)hard clinical
In patients with atrial fibrillation taking warfarin, poor INR control is associated with significantly higher risks of mortality, major bleeding, MI, and stroke compared to good INR control.
Cite This Study
Harvey D. White (2007) studied this question.