Key result
In elderly Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, maintaining a time in therapeutic range of 60-79.9% significantly reduced the risk of thromboembolism compared to no warfarin (HR 0.34).
Why the study?
Does warfarin therapy with high Time in Therapeutic Range (TTR) improve outcomes and reduce bleeding compared to no warfarin in elderly Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=3,832)
Yes
Does warfarin therapy with high Time in Therapeutic Range (TTR) improve outcomes and reduce bleeding compared to no warfarin in elderly Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Hazard Ratio: 0.34 (95% CI 0.17–0.67)
Absolute Event Rate: 1.3% vs 4.1%
p-value: p=0.002
In elderly Japanese patients with NVAF, maintaining a TTR ≥60% with warfarin is crucial to prevent thromboembolism and all-cause death, while a TTR <40% significantly increases the risk of major hemorrhage compared to no warfarin.
TTR 60-79.9% was associated with lower thromboembolism risk in elderly Japanese NVAF; leaves open confirmation versus no warfarin in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: The relationship between warfarin treatment quality and prognosis for Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) has not been studied thoroughly. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from the J-RHYTHM Registry were used to determine the time in therapeutic range (TTR) of the international normalized ratio (INR) of prothrombin time in elderly patients (≥70 years). Target INR was 1.6-2.6. Of 7,406 patients with NVAF in the database, 3,832 elderly patients (mean [±SD] age 77.0±5.0 years) constituted the study group. Of these patients, 459 did not receive warfarin and 3,373 received warfarin. Patients on warfarin were subdivided into 4 TTR groups: <40%, 40-59.9%, 60-79.9%, and ≥80%. During the 2-year follow-up, the incidence of thromboembolism and all-cause death was lower in patients with higher TTR (Ptrend<0.001); however, the incidence of major hemorrhage was higher in patients with TTR <40%. In multivariate analysis, compared with the no-warfarin group, TTR 60-79.9% and ≥80% were associated with lower thromboembolic risk, with hazard ratios (HR) of 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-0.67; P=0.002) and 0.35 (95% CI 0.18-0.68; P=0.002), respectively, and lower all-cause death (HR 0.37 [95% CI 0.22-0.65; P<0.001] and 0.43 [95% CI 0.26-0.71; P=0.001], respectively). TTR <40% was associated with major hemorrhage (HR 5.57; 95% CI 2.04-15.25; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In elderly Japanese patients with NVAF, TTR should be maintained ≥60% to prevent thromboembolism and all-cause death. TTR <40% should be avoided to prevent major hemorrhage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Inoue et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation (n=3,832). Time in therapeutic range (TTR) 60-79.9% vs. No warfarin was evaluated on Thromboembolism (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.67, p=0.002). In elderly Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, maintaining a time in therapeutic range of 60-79.9% significantly reduced the risk of thromboembolism compared to no warfarin (HR 0.34).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: