0
Reviews |

Warfarin Anticoagulation and Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation*: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis FREE TO VIEW

Matthew W. Reynolds, PhD; Kyle Fahrbach, PhD; Ole Hauch, MD; Gail Wygant, RN, MS; Rhonda Estok, RN, BSN; Catherine Cella; Luba Nalysnyk, MD, MPH
Author and Funding Information

*From MetaWorks Inc. (Drs. Reynolds, Fahrbach, and Nalysnyk, Ms. Estok, and Ms. Cella), Medford, MA; and AstraZeneca LP (Dr. Hauch and Ms. Wygant), Wilmington, DE.

Correspondence to: Matthew W. Reynolds, PhD, 10 President’s Landing, Third Floor, Medford, MA 02155; e-mail: Mreynolds@metaworksinc.com



Chest. 2004;126(6):1938-1945. doi:10.1378/chest.126.6.1938
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective: To examine the relationship between international normalized ratio (INR) and outcomes (major bleeding events and strokes) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving anticoagulation with warfarin.

Methods: A systematic review and metaanalysis of studies published in the English language between January 1, 1985, and October 30, 2002, was performed. MEDLINE (PubMed), Current Contents, and relevant reference lists were searched. Studies enrolling patients with nonvalvular AF receiving warfarin anticoagulation were eligible for inclusion if they reported stroke and/or major bleeding events in relation to INR, or time spent in therapeutic range. The risk of bleeds in overanticoagulated patients (INR > 3) and the risk of strokes in underanticoagulated patients (INR < 2) were assessed.

Results: Twenty-one studies (6,248 patients) met all inclusion criteria. Of the 21 studies, a target conventional INR of 2 to 3 was used in 9 studies. An INR < 2, compared with an INR ≥ 2, was associated with an odds ratio (OR) for ischemic events of 5.07 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.92 to 8.80). An INR > 3, compared with an INR ≤ 3, was associated with an OR for bleeding events of 3.21 (95% CI, 1.24 to 8.28). On average, in the four studies with a target INR range of 2 to 3, patients with AF receiving warfarin spent 61% of time within, 13% of time above, and 26% below the therapeutic range.

Conclusion: Available evidence indicates that in patients with nonvalvular AF, the risk of ischemic stroke with insufficient warfarin anticoagulation (INR < 2), and the risk of bleeding events with overanticoagulation (INR > 3) are significantly higher relative to patients with AF maintained within the recommended INR of 2 to 3. However, the published data are sparse, heterogeneous, and primarily reported from clinical trials. More studies evaluating clinical outcomes in relation to INR are needed, especially in a real-world setting.

A trial fibrillation (AF) occurs in 2% of adults aged 65 to 75 years, 5% of adults > 75 years old, and 14% of adults > 84 years old.1The presence of AF has been found to more than quadruple the risk of stroke.2Since AF is such a strong risk factor for stroke and is so common in older, stroke-prone individuals, it accounts for approximately 14% of all strokes in patients > 60 years old, or 75,000 strokes per year.3A series of clinical trials49 that began in the mid-1980s provided substantial evidence for the effectiveness of warfarin in the prevention of stroke in patients with AF. However, anticoagulation with warfarin is not without risk, and therapeutic ranges are narrow. Underanticoagulation may result in thrombotic events, and overanticoagulation carries an increased risk of hemorrhage. Efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in AF are dependent on the maintenance of the international normalized ratio (INR) between 2 to 3 as recommended by current practice guidelines.10

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the relationship between INR and selected outcomes (bleeds and strokes) in patients with nonvalvular AF receiving anticoagulation. It will quantify the risk of bleeding in association with overanticoagulation (INR > 3) and the risk of stroke and/or other ischemic events associated with underanticoagulation (INR < 2). Further, in studies that report information regarding the time spent in therapeutic range, this review will summarize and analyze the level of INR control in patients with AF.

In general, procedures for this review followed established best methods for the evolving science of systematic review research.1112 A protocol was written prospectively, which stated the objectives, search criteria, study selection criteria, data elements of interest, and plans for analysis.

Literature Search

We conducted a systematic literature review using MEDLINE and Current Contents to identify relevant articles published in the English language between January 1, 1985, and October 30, 2002. We also manually searched references of retrieved articles to identify additional relevant published studies. Search criteria included MEDLINE medical subject heading terms for AF, anticoagulants, and warfarin.

We accepted studies of any design with patients with nonvalvular AF receiving warfarin as long as they reported the outcomes of interest (stroke and/or bleeding events) in relation to INR and/or time spent in, above, or below the INR therapeutic range. Studies in which all or a vast majority (≥ 85%) of patients enrolled had nonvalvular AF, either chronic or paroxysmal, were eligible for inclusion. Only groups receiving anticoagulation with warfarin alone were analyzed; groups receiving combination therapy were not analyzed.

Database Development

Data from all accepted studies were extracted to a data form by one investigator, and all elements were reviewed and agreed on by a second investigator before data entry. Data elements sought from each accepted study were protocol-specified study, patient and treatment characteristics, INR information (ie, time in range), and number of patients with adverse events of interest by INR strata.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive data were summarized across studies using simple counts and means. The incidences of outcomes of interest (bleeds: major and minor and strokes and transient ischemic attacks [TIAs]) were pooled across treatment groups. Odds ratios (ORs) for outcomes of interest were computed for individual studies and then pooled across studies using random-effects modeling.13 All studies for which an OR was calculated reported the number of patients with events in range and out of range; most studies did not report the in-range and out-of-range number of patients without events. In these studies, the 2 × 2 table used to calculate a study OR required estimation of total event and nonevent counts using percentage of patients/measurements/time-in-range data. For instance, if 100 patients were evaluated for events, and 30% of INR measurements were INR < 2, it was assumed that 30 patients had INRs < 2. These total counts, combined with the reported event counts (eg, a study might report that five of the patients who had strokes had an INR < 2) were used to estimate the number of patients without events in and out of range.

Events per person-year rates were calculated for all studies reporting both events below/above the key INR ranges (< 2 and ≥ 2 for stroke, ≤ 3 and > 3 for major bleeds) and a percentage of time/measurements/patients for each of those ranges. The numerator was the number of events within that INR range; the denominator was the estimated number of patient-years spent within that INR range in the study. For instance, a 2-year study of 200 patients would have a total of 400 observed patient-years. If 30% of observations were with an INR < 2, the denominator for the INR < 2 calculation would be 0.30 × 400 = 120 patient-years. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 8.1 (SAS Institute; Cary, NC).

Studies

Seven hundred forty-one abstracts were screened, and 211 full articles were retrieved. Of these, 21 primary (and 9 linked) studies59,1438 met our inclusion criteria and were accepted for this review. Most of the remaining articles were rejected either because INR was not reported, or the study included a mixed population, in which outcomes for patients with AF were not separable.

Table 1 presents a summary of study characteristics for the accepted studies. Included studies consisted of 11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs)5,79,2324,29,32,3435,37 enrolling the majority of patients (n = 4,405), 9 observational studies1415,1718,2526,3031,38 (n = 1,808), and 1 uncontrolled case series (UCS)27 (n = 35). The small UCS was grouped with the observational studies for analysis purposes. Of the 21 studies, 17 studies5,78,1415,1718,2327,3032,3435 (n = 5,366) were primary prevention, and 4 studies9,29,3738 (n = 882) were secondary prevention studies enrolling only patients with AF with a previous stroke or TIA.

Included in the 21 studies were 9 studies7,1415,23,2526,31,21,34 of patients with AF (n = 2,046) receiving anticoagulation with a target INR of 2 to 3. This was the primary population of interest in the main statistical analysis. In 11 other groups of patients with AF (n = 2,819), conventional anticoagulation intensity was variable, with INR targets ranging from 1.4 to 4.5.5,89,1718,24,2930,35,3738 There were also five groups (n = 691) receiving low-intensity anticoagulation (INR range, 1.1 to 2.1),2324,27,32,37 and two groups (n = 692) were receiving a combination treatment of warfarin and aspirin.23,34 The latter two combination groups were not analyzed.

Ischemic Events Incidence (Pooled Results)

The pooled incidence of ischemic events was calculated for reference purposes. Table 2 displays the pooled incidence of stroke and TIA in patients with AF by INR target ranges. The results are presented for all studies, and also stratified by study design (RCT vs observational studies). For groups with a target INR of 2 to 3,7,15,23,26,3132,34 the incidence of stroke was 2.1%. The incidence of stroke was higher in groups with other INR ranges, especially the low-intensity category (1.1 to 2.1),2324,27,32,37 where stroke occurred in 5.8% of patients. The frequency of TIAs did not vary as widely across these different INR ranges.

Bleeding Events Incidence (Pooled Results)

Incidences of bleeding events by INR target category are also presented in Table 2. The incidence of major bleeds (predominantly cerebral bleeds) in groups with an INR target of 2 to 37,15,23,26,3132,34 was lower (2.6%), compared with those with much wider therapeutic ranges for anticoagulation (3.6%).5,89,18,24,2930,35,3738 Minor bleeds were, as expected, more frequent than major bleeds in both INR target categories. All of the pooled incidences should be interpreted with caution, however, because of the small number of studies contributing to each stratum.

Target Anticoagulation Achieved

Only six studies5,78,23,26,32 reported the percentage of time patients with AF receiving anticoagulation spent in INR therapeutic range. Other studies reported achievement of target anticoagulation as number (percentage) of patients in range (four treatment groups),15,18,37 or number (percentage) of measurements in range (five treatment groups).9,24,29,34 The exact methods for obtaining these estimates were not always reported, so it is possible that in some studies a percentage of measures in range, for instance, was used to estimate a percentage of patients or percentage of time in therapeutic range. Nevertheless, these categories may not be similar and therefore were summarized separately. Table 3 displays these results by INR target range.

In groups with an INR target of 2 to 3,7,23,26,32 patients with AF on average spent 61.3% of time in range, 12.7% above range, and 26.0% below range. The outcomes were similar in RCTs and observational studies. When presented as percentage of patients in range (one study), only 34.8% of patients were reported as being in range, with 56.5% of patients reported as being below target INR range. One study34 reported results as a percentage of measurements in range for patients with a target INR range of 2 to 3; this study found 61.0% of measurements within target range with 14.0% of measurements above range and 25.0% of measurements below range.

Groups with more variable INR ranges5,89,18,24,37 spent slightly less time in range (48.1%), had fewer measurements in range (70.3%), but reported slightly higher percentage of patients in range (45.2%). It should be noted that these results are based on only two studies in each reporting stratum and that studies are exclusive from each other.

Stroke and Bleeding Events Outside the Target INR Range

Table 4 presents the incidence of ischemic stroke, in all studies with available data and by study design, occurring in underanticoagulated patients (INR < 2) and those with normal anticoagulation (INR ≥ 2). The stroke incidence is much higher in underanticoagulated patients with AF (7.4 events vs 1.3 events per 100 patient-years). Higher stroke incidence was observed in observational studies as compared with RCTs. The incidence of stroke in underanticoagulated patients in observational studies compared with normal anticoagulation was 9.8 events vs 1.6 events per 100 patient-years, as compared with RCTs that reported 3.1 events vs 0.5 events per 100 patient-years.

Table 4 also presents the incidence of major bleeding events occurring in overanticoagulated patients (INR > 3) and those with normal anticoagulation (INR ≤ 3). Major bleeds were much more common in overanticoagulated patients with AF (3.7 events per 100 patient-years) than in normally anticoagulated patients (1.4 events per 100 patient-years). Patients with AF in observational studies had an incidence of major bleeds of 4.7 events vs 1.0 events per 100 patient-years in overanticoagulated vs appropriately anticoagulated patients, respectively. Similarly, randomized trials reported rates of 3.3 events vs 1.5 events per 100 patient-years.

The meta-analysis confirms these pooled results. Meta-analytic results of ORs for stroke and major bleeds are presented in Table 5 . For strokes, only studies7,15,1718,2526,31,37 with extractable information for the lower INR target boundary of ≥ 2 were included in the meta-analyses; for major bleeds, only studies78,15,23,3132,34 with extractable information for an upper INR target boundary of ≤ 3 were included in these analyses. The overall OR for ischemic stroke for patients with INR < 2 vs INR ≥ 2 is 5.07 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.92 to 8.80), which means that underanticoagulated patients with AF are significantly more likely to have stroke than those maintained within normal anticoagulation range. Also, the ORs for stroke in underanticoagulated vs normal anticoagulated patients are higher in primary prevention studies than secondary prevention studies (5.28 vs 1.09), and in studies enrolling both patients with chronic and paroxysmal AF compared to patients with entirely chronic AF (7.28 vs 3.42).7,15,18,2526,3132,37

For major bleeds, for patients with INR > 3 vs ≤ 3, the OR is 3.21 (95% CI, 1.24 to 8.28), meaning that overanticoagulated patients are significantly more likely to experience major bleeds than those normally anticoagulated. The ORs for major bleeding in overanticoagulated vs normal anticoagulated patients were higher in observational studies compared with RCTs (5.67 vs 2.37), and in studies enrolling only patients with chronic AF compared with mixed AF populations (4.06 vs 2.72).78,15,23,3132,39

There were also several studies9,17,25,3032 providing information on stroke and bleeds by multiple INR strata, which allowed some exploration of the spectrum of the risk of events along a more continuous INR range. The ORs for stroke and bleeds were calculated for each stratum within each such study that also had a normal reference INR range available (INR 2 to 3). Table 6 shows the meta-analyzed OR results. Although there appears to be significant heterogeneity in the study results for the extreme stratum of INR for the ischemic events, there is a significantly elevated OR of 2.11 (95% CI, 1.06 to 4.19) for the INR 1.5 to 2.0 stratum compared with the INR 2 to 3 reference group. The OR point estimate for the INR < 1.5 stratum is 3.25 for ischemic events, but the 95% CI (0.45 to 23.46) is wide and includes 1, and is therefore not statistically significant. The OR for major bleeds for INR 3 to 4 compared with INR 2 to 3 is 2.34 (95% CI, 0.54 to 10.10), and does not reach statistical significance. The OR for INR > 4 compared with the INR 2 to 3 reference group is highly significant at 33.23 (95% CI, 9.12 to 121.07).

The results are in line with the current clinical belief39 that low INR is associated with an increased risk of stroke and high INR is associated with increased risk of bleeding. The available evidence indicates a higher incidence of ischemic stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF with insufficient anticoagulation (INR < 2), and a higher incidence of bleeding events in overanticoagulated patients with nonvalvular AF (INR > 3). Further, the results of well-controlled, published clinical trials7,23,32 show that patients with nonvalvular AF receiving warfarin anticoagulation spend, on average, only approximately 60% of time in the INR therapeutic range. Approximately 25% of the time, patients with nonvalvular AF are below the minimum target INR of 2, and thus are not adequately protected against stroke. Another 13% of the time, patients spend time above the upper INR limit of 3, and are at increased risk for major bleeding events.

It is clear that the incidence of events is associated not just with time in range, but the target INR range itself. The wider targets (INR 1.4 to 4.5) have higher incidence of both strokes and bleeds, and the low-intensity targets (INR 1.1 to 2.1) have a higher incidence of stroke. It would seem that this would be related to having more patients who are successfully in the target range, but are still treated to an INR < 2 or an INR > 3. Patients with nonvalvular AF who are treated to an INR target of 1.1 to 2.1 may be minimizing their risk of bleeds, but may not be fully protected from the risk of stroke.

There are several previous meta-analyses4041 that have addressed the effectiveness of warfarin in patients with AF, but none of them have specifically addressed the risk of stroke and bleed events associated with INR. This meta-analysis was able to address the evidence gap that existed regarding the association between INR and risk of stroke and bleeds.

Recent publications4243 from a large integrated delivery system have reported similar findings both with respect to time in range, which was reported to be 62.5%, and with respect to the relationship between INR and outcomes. Eighty percent of the patients in this study were managed by a coagulation service. Whereas the relationship between INR and outcomes seem to be well documented by the current meta-analyses and the study of the large, integrated health delivery system,4243 these reports cannot be taken as an indication of outcomes of warfarin therapy in routine medical care. Time in range has been documented, in a few studies4445 addressing the issues, to be much lower in routine medical management than it has been reported in clinical trials and coagulation clinics. Additionally, modeling studies4647 have demonstrated that the outcomes of anticoagulation with warfarin are highly dependent of how warfarin is managed and the level of INR control achieved. It is possible that one or more novel fixed-dose antithrombotic agents that do not require anticoagulation monitoring currently in development for stroke prevention in patients with AF may overcome the problems of managing INR associated with warfarin therapy.48

The main limitation of this review and meta-analysis is that study variability and incomplete reporting limited the number of studies that could be included in the meta-analysis. Before 1990, there were very few studies that provided information on INR, since most studies used prothrombin time as the marker for warfarin intensity. Additionally, the majority of studies (and patients) included in the INR analyses were based on data from RCTs, which provide detailed information on INR and outcomes, but which may not provide evidence that is generalizable to the non-RCT general population. There was an apparent lack of information on the INR control and INR association with adverse events in particular for non-RCT treatment. Additional information on treatment setting such as general practitioner treatment vs coagulation clinics may provide additional detail on factors that influence time in INR range and the link to adverse events.

An additional limitation is that this was an analysis of study group data rather than individual patient-level data. That distinction must be made, as analyses were unable to control for known risk factors for stroke, such as previous stroke, previous bleeds, and older age. Observational cohort studies may provide a better opportunity to assess real-world effectiveness. Currently, there are few published observational nonclinical trial studies that link INR to outcomes. Over the past few years, it has been increasingly more common for individual patient databases, based on either insurance claims or electronic medical records, to include laboratory results along with a longitudinal patient medical history. These databases may be an important and useful source of information in understanding the real-life relationship between INR and outcomes like bleeds and strokes.

Conversely, the fact that this was a literature review of studies (as compared with an individual patient-level analysis) is also the biggest strength of this review because these results represent all of the best evidence from the available published literature. The conclusions support the clinical belief that the level of INR is directly related to an increased risk of stroke or bleeds.

Abbreviations: AF = atrial fibrillation; CI = confidence interval; INR = international normalized ratio; OR = odds ratio; RCT = randomized clinical trial; TIA = transient ischemic attack; UCS = uncontrolled case series

Sponsored by AstraZeneca LP, Wilmington, DE.

Dr. Reynolds is an employee of MetaWorks whose company was contracted by AstraZeneca to conduct the systematic review and metaanalysis presented in this article. Other coauthors of this article have not received anything of value either directly or indirectly from a commercial or other party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article submission.

For instructions on attaining CME credit, see page A-56 or visit www.chestnet.org

Learning Objectives: 1. To recognize that the INR below 2.0 was associated with a 5-fold increase in the risk of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. 2. To understand that an INR over 3 increased the risk of major bleeding 3-fold.

Table Graphic Jump Location
Table 1. Study Characteristics
* 

Anticoagulation total exceeds the total number of studies, as some studies included more than one group with different target INR ranges.

 

Includes target INR 2.0–3.5 in some patients on one study.31

 

Target INRs of 1.4–2.8, 1.5–3.5, 1.91–4.1, 2.0–3.5, 2.5–4.0, 2.5–3.5, 2.0–4.5, 2.2–3.5, and two studies with variable intensity.

§ 

Target INRs of 1.1–1.6, 1.5–2.0, 1.5–2.1, one group of mini-dose warfarin, and one group of fixed-dose warfarin without INR target.

Table Graphic Jump Location
Table 2. Incidence of Ischemic and Bleeding Events (Pooled Results)*
* 

Data are presented as No. of patients with event/total No. of patients assessed for event (%).

 

Includes one group with target INR 2–3 or 2–3.5.

 

Target INR 2–3 groups excluded.

§ 

Includes one UCS.

Table Graphic Jump Location
Table 3. Anticoagulation Intensity Outcomes*
* 

All pooled data were weighted by sample size of the treatment group using the No. of patients evaluated for INR efficacy.

 

Includes one group with target INR 2–3 or 2–3.5.

 

Target INR 2–3 groups excluded.

Table Graphic Jump Location
Table 4. Ischemic Stroke and Major Bleeding Incidence by INR (Patient-Years Analysis)
Table Graphic Jump Location
Table 5. OR for Ischemic and Bleeding Events*
* 

Q p value = result of test of homogeneity (p < 0.05 indicates heterogeneity).

 

Includes on UCS.

Table Graphic Jump Location
Table 6. Metaanalysis of ORs for Multiple INR Strata
* 

Relative to INR 2–3 reference range.

 

Indicates significant heterogeneity.

Akhtar, W, Reeves, WC, Movahed, A (1998) Indications for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation.Am Fam Physician58,130-135. [PubMed]
 
Wolf, PA, Abbott, RD, Kannel, WB Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham study.Stroke1991;22,983-988. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Singer, D Anticoagulation to prevent stroke in atrial fibrillation and its implications for managed care.Am J Cardiol1998;81,35C-40C. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
The Boston Area Anticoagulation Trial for Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. The effect of low-dose warfarin on the risk of stroke in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation.N Engl J Med1990;323,1505-1511. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Petersen, P, Godtfredsen, J, Boysen, G, et al Placebo-controlled, randomised trial of warfarin and aspirin for prevention of thromboembolic complications in chronic atrial fibrillation: the Copenhagen AFASAK study.Lancet1989;1,175-179. [PubMed]
 
Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Study: final results.Circulation1991;84,527-529. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Connolly, SJ, Laupacis, A, Gent, M, et al Canadian atrial fibrillation anticoagulation (CAFA) study.J Am Coll Cardiol1991;18,349-355. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Ezekowitz, MD, Bridgers, SL, James, KE, et al Warfarin in the prevention of stroke associated with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation.N Engl J Med1992;327,1406-1412. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
EAFT (European Atrial Fibrillation Trial) Study Group. Secondary prevention in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke.Lancet1993;342,1256-1262
 
Albers, G, Dalen, J, Laupacis, A, et al Antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation: Sixth ACCP Consensus Conference on Antithrombotic Therapy.Chest2001;119,194S-206S. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Cook, DJ, Mulrow, CD, Haynes, RB Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions.Ann Intern Med1997;126,376-380. [PubMed]
 
Mulrow CD, Oxman AD, eds. Cochrane collaboration handbook. The Cochrane Library. The Cochrane Collaboration; Issue 1. Oxford, UK: Update Software, 1997.
 
Fleiss, JL Statistical methods for rates and proportions 2nd ed.1981 John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY:
 
Albers, GW, Bittar, N, Young, L, et al Clinical characteristics and management of acute stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation admitted to US university hospitals.Neurology1997;48,1598-1604. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Ang, SY, Peterson, GM, Friesen, WT, et al Review of antithrombotic drug usage in atrial fibrillation.J Clin Pharm Ther1998;23,97-106. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Blackshear, JL, Zabalgoitia, M, Pennock, G, et al Warfarin safety and efficacy in patients with thoracic aortic plaque and atrial fibrillation.Am J Cardiol1999;83,453-455,A9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Brass, LM, Krumholz, HM, Scinto, JM, et al Warfarin use among patients with atrial fibrillation.Stroke1997;28,2382-2389. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Cohen, N, Almoznino-Sarafian, D, Alon, I, et al Adequacy of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: effect of various parameters.Clin Cardiol2001;24,380-384. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Cowburn, P, Cleland, JG SPAF-III results. Eur Heart J. 1996;;17 ,.:1129. [PubMed]
 
European Atrial Fibrillation Trial Study Group. Optimal oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation and recent cerebral ischemia.N Engl J Med1995;333,5-10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Ezekowitz, MD, James, KE, Nazarian, SM, et al Silent cerebral infarction in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. The Veterans Affairs Stroke Prevention in Nonrheumatic Atrial Fibrillation Investigators.Circulation1995;92,2178-2182. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Gullov, AL, Koefoed, BG, Petersen, P Bleeding during warfarin and aspirin therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: the AFASAK 2 study.Arch Intern Med1999;159,1322-1328. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Gullov, AL, Koefoed, BG, Petersen, P, et al Fixed minidose warfarin and aspirin alone and in combination vs adjusted-dose warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: Second Copenhagen Atrial Fibrillation, Aspirin, and Anticoagulation Study.Arch Intern Med1998;158,1513-1521. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Hellemons, BS, Langenberg, M, Lodder, J, et al Primary prevention of arterial thromboembolism in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation in primary care: randomised controlled trial comparing two intensities of coumarin with aspirin.BMJ1999;319,958-964. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Hylek, EM, Skates, SJ, Sheehan, MA, et al An analysis of the lowest effective intensity of prophylactic anticoagulation for patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation.N Engl J Med1996;335,540-546. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Kalra, L, Yu, G, Perez, I, et al Prospective cohort study to determine if trial efficacy of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation translates into clinical effectiveness.BMJ2000;320,1236-1239. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Kimura, M, Wasaki, Y, Ogawa, H, et al Effect of low-intensity warfarin therapy on left atrial thrombus resolution in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a transesophageal echocardiographic study.Jpn Circ J2001;65,271-274. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Koefoed, BG, Feddersen, C, Gullov, AL, et al Effect of fixed minidose warfarin, conventional dose warfarin and aspirin on INR and prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 in patients with atrial fibrillation.Thromb Haemost1997;77,845-848. [PubMed]
 
Morocutti, C, Amabile, G, Fattapposta, F, et al Indobufen versus warfarin in the secondary prevention of major vascular events in nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. SIFA (Studio Italiano Fibrillazione Atriale) Investigators.Stroke1997;28,1015-1021. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Nozawa, T, Asanoi, H, Inoue, H Instability of anticoagulation intensity contributes to occurrence of ischemic stroke in patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation.Jpn Circ J2001;65,404-408. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Pengo, V, Legnani, C, Noventa, F, et al Oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation and risk of bleeding: a multicenter inception cohort study.Thromb Haemost2001;85,418-422. [PubMed]
 
Pengo, V, Zasso, A, Barbero, F, et al Effectiveness of fixed minidose warfarin in the prevention of thromboembolism and vascular death in nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation.Am J Cardiol1998;82,433-437. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
The Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Bleeding during antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation.Arch Intern Med1996;156,409-416. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
The Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Adjusted-dose warfarin versus low-intensity, fixed-dose warfarin plus aspirin for high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation: Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation III randomised clinical trial.Lancet1996;348,633-638. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
The Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Warfarin versus aspirin for prevention of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation: Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation II Study.Lancet1994;343,687-691. [PubMed]
 
The Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators Committee on Echocardiography. Transesophageal echocardiographic correlates of thromboembolism in high-risk patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.Ann Intern Med1998;128,639-647. [PubMed]
 
Yamaguchi, T Optimal intensity of warfarin therapy for secondary prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Japanese Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation-Embolism Secondary Prevention Cooperative Study Group.Stroke2000;31,817-821. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Yasaka, M, Minematsu, K, Yamaguchi, T Optimal intensity of international normalized ratio in warfarin therapy for secondary prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.Intern Med2001;40,1183-1188. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Albers, GW, Dalen, JE, Laupacis, A, et al Antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation.Chest2001;119,194S-206S. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Taylor, FC, Cohen, H, Ebrahim, S Systematic review of long term anticoagulation or antiplatelet treatment in patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation.BMJ2001;322,321-326. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Van Walraven, C, Hart, RG, Singer, DE, et al Oral anticoagulants vs aspirin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: an individual patient meta-analysis.JAMA2002;288,2441-2448. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Go, AS, Hylek, EM, Change, Y, et al Anticoagulation therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: how well do randomized trials translate into clinical practice.JAMA2003;290,2685-2692. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Hylek, EM, Go, AS, Chang, Y, et al Effect of intensity of oral anticoagulation on stroke severity and mortality in atrial fibrillation.N Engl J Med2003;349,1019-1026. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Matchar, DB, Samsa, GP, Cohen, SJ, et al Improving the quality of anticoagulation of patients with atrial fibrillation in managed care organizations: results of the managing anticoagulation services trial.Am J Med2002;113,42-51. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Chiquette, E, Amato, MG, Bussey, HI Comparison of an anticoagulation clinic with usual medical care: anticoagulation control, patient outcomes, and health care costs.Arch Intern Med1998;158,1641-1647. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Samsa, GP, Matchar, DB, Phillips, DL, et al Which approach to anticoagulation management is best?: Illustration of an interactive mathematical model to support informed decision making.J Thromb Thrombol2002;14,103-111. [CrossRef]
 
Lafata, JE, Martin, SA, Kaatz, S, et al The cost-effectiveness of different management strategies for patients on chronic warfarin therapy.J Gen Intern Med2000;15,31-37. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
O’Donnell, M, Weitz, JI Novel antithrombotic therapies for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.Am J Manag Care2004;10,S72-S82. [PubMed]
 

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump Location
Table 1. Study Characteristics
* 

Anticoagulation total exceeds the total number of studies, as some studies included more than one group with different target INR ranges.

 

Includes target INR 2.0–3.5 in some patients on one study.31

 

Target INRs of 1.4–2.8, 1.5–3.5, 1.91–4.1, 2.0–3.5, 2.5–4.0, 2.5–3.5, 2.0–4.5, 2.2–3.5, and two studies with variable intensity.

§ 

Target INRs of 1.1–1.6, 1.5–2.0, 1.5–2.1, one group of mini-dose warfarin, and one group of fixed-dose warfarin without INR target.

Table Graphic Jump Location
Table 2. Incidence of Ischemic and Bleeding Events (Pooled Results)*
* 

Data are presented as No. of patients with event/total No. of patients assessed for event (%).

 

Includes one group with target INR 2–3 or 2–3.5.

 

Target INR 2–3 groups excluded.

§ 

Includes one UCS.

Table Graphic Jump Location
Table 3. Anticoagulation Intensity Outcomes*
* 

All pooled data were weighted by sample size of the treatment group using the No. of patients evaluated for INR efficacy.

 

Includes one group with target INR 2–3 or 2–3.5.

 

Target INR 2–3 groups excluded.

Table Graphic Jump Location
Table 4. Ischemic Stroke and Major Bleeding Incidence by INR (Patient-Years Analysis)
Table Graphic Jump Location
Table 5. OR for Ischemic and Bleeding Events*
* 

Q p value = result of test of homogeneity (p < 0.05 indicates heterogeneity).

 

Includes on UCS.

Table Graphic Jump Location
Table 6. Metaanalysis of ORs for Multiple INR Strata
* 

Relative to INR 2–3 reference range.

 

Indicates significant heterogeneity.

References

Akhtar, W, Reeves, WC, Movahed, A (1998) Indications for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation.Am Fam Physician58,130-135. [PubMed]
 
Wolf, PA, Abbott, RD, Kannel, WB Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham study.Stroke1991;22,983-988. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Singer, D Anticoagulation to prevent stroke in atrial fibrillation and its implications for managed care.Am J Cardiol1998;81,35C-40C. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
The Boston Area Anticoagulation Trial for Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. The effect of low-dose warfarin on the risk of stroke in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation.N Engl J Med1990;323,1505-1511. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Petersen, P, Godtfredsen, J, Boysen, G, et al Placebo-controlled, randomised trial of warfarin and aspirin for prevention of thromboembolic complications in chronic atrial fibrillation: the Copenhagen AFASAK study.Lancet1989;1,175-179. [PubMed]
 
Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Study: final results.Circulation1991;84,527-529. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Connolly, SJ, Laupacis, A, Gent, M, et al Canadian atrial fibrillation anticoagulation (CAFA) study.J Am Coll Cardiol1991;18,349-355. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Ezekowitz, MD, Bridgers, SL, James, KE, et al Warfarin in the prevention of stroke associated with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation.N Engl J Med1992;327,1406-1412. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
EAFT (European Atrial Fibrillation Trial) Study Group. Secondary prevention in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke.Lancet1993;342,1256-1262
 
Albers, G, Dalen, J, Laupacis, A, et al Antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation: Sixth ACCP Consensus Conference on Antithrombotic Therapy.Chest2001;119,194S-206S. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Cook, DJ, Mulrow, CD, Haynes, RB Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions.Ann Intern Med1997;126,376-380. [PubMed]
 
Mulrow CD, Oxman AD, eds. Cochrane collaboration handbook. The Cochrane Library. The Cochrane Collaboration; Issue 1. Oxford, UK: Update Software, 1997.
 
Fleiss, JL Statistical methods for rates and proportions 2nd ed.1981 John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY:
 
Albers, GW, Bittar, N, Young, L, et al Clinical characteristics and management of acute stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation admitted to US university hospitals.Neurology1997;48,1598-1604. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Ang, SY, Peterson, GM, Friesen, WT, et al Review of antithrombotic drug usage in atrial fibrillation.J Clin Pharm Ther1998;23,97-106. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Blackshear, JL, Zabalgoitia, M, Pennock, G, et al Warfarin safety and efficacy in patients with thoracic aortic plaque and atrial fibrillation.Am J Cardiol1999;83,453-455,A9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Brass, LM, Krumholz, HM, Scinto, JM, et al Warfarin use among patients with atrial fibrillation.Stroke1997;28,2382-2389. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Cohen, N, Almoznino-Sarafian, D, Alon, I, et al Adequacy of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: effect of various parameters.Clin Cardiol2001;24,380-384. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Cowburn, P, Cleland, JG SPAF-III results. Eur Heart J. 1996;;17 ,.:1129. [PubMed]
 
European Atrial Fibrillation Trial Study Group. Optimal oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation and recent cerebral ischemia.N Engl J Med1995;333,5-10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Ezekowitz, MD, James, KE, Nazarian, SM, et al Silent cerebral infarction in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. The Veterans Affairs Stroke Prevention in Nonrheumatic Atrial Fibrillation Investigators.Circulation1995;92,2178-2182. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Gullov, AL, Koefoed, BG, Petersen, P Bleeding during warfarin and aspirin therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: the AFASAK 2 study.Arch Intern Med1999;159,1322-1328. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Gullov, AL, Koefoed, BG, Petersen, P, et al Fixed minidose warfarin and aspirin alone and in combination vs adjusted-dose warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: Second Copenhagen Atrial Fibrillation, Aspirin, and Anticoagulation Study.Arch Intern Med1998;158,1513-1521. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Hellemons, BS, Langenberg, M, Lodder, J, et al Primary prevention of arterial thromboembolism in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation in primary care: randomised controlled trial comparing two intensities of coumarin with aspirin.BMJ1999;319,958-964. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Hylek, EM, Skates, SJ, Sheehan, MA, et al An analysis of the lowest effective intensity of prophylactic anticoagulation for patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation.N Engl J Med1996;335,540-546. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Kalra, L, Yu, G, Perez, I, et al Prospective cohort study to determine if trial efficacy of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation translates into clinical effectiveness.BMJ2000;320,1236-1239. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Kimura, M, Wasaki, Y, Ogawa, H, et al Effect of low-intensity warfarin therapy on left atrial thrombus resolution in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a transesophageal echocardiographic study.Jpn Circ J2001;65,271-274. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Koefoed, BG, Feddersen, C, Gullov, AL, et al Effect of fixed minidose warfarin, conventional dose warfarin and aspirin on INR and prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 in patients with atrial fibrillation.Thromb Haemost1997;77,845-848. [PubMed]
 
Morocutti, C, Amabile, G, Fattapposta, F, et al Indobufen versus warfarin in the secondary prevention of major vascular events in nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. SIFA (Studio Italiano Fibrillazione Atriale) Investigators.Stroke1997;28,1015-1021. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Nozawa, T, Asanoi, H, Inoue, H Instability of anticoagulation intensity contributes to occurrence of ischemic stroke in patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation.Jpn Circ J2001;65,404-408. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Pengo, V, Legnani, C, Noventa, F, et al Oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation and risk of bleeding: a multicenter inception cohort study.Thromb Haemost2001;85,418-422. [PubMed]
 
Pengo, V, Zasso, A, Barbero, F, et al Effectiveness of fixed minidose warfarin in the prevention of thromboembolism and vascular death in nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation.Am J Cardiol1998;82,433-437. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
The Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Bleeding during antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation.Arch Intern Med1996;156,409-416. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
The Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Adjusted-dose warfarin versus low-intensity, fixed-dose warfarin plus aspirin for high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation: Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation III randomised clinical trial.Lancet1996;348,633-638. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
The Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Warfarin versus aspirin for prevention of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation: Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation II Study.Lancet1994;343,687-691. [PubMed]
 
The Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators Committee on Echocardiography. Transesophageal echocardiographic correlates of thromboembolism in high-risk patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.Ann Intern Med1998;128,639-647. [PubMed]
 
Yamaguchi, T Optimal intensity of warfarin therapy for secondary prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Japanese Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation-Embolism Secondary Prevention Cooperative Study Group.Stroke2000;31,817-821. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Yasaka, M, Minematsu, K, Yamaguchi, T Optimal intensity of international normalized ratio in warfarin therapy for secondary prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.Intern Med2001;40,1183-1188. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Albers, GW, Dalen, JE, Laupacis, A, et al Antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation.Chest2001;119,194S-206S. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Taylor, FC, Cohen, H, Ebrahim, S Systematic review of long term anticoagulation or antiplatelet treatment in patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation.BMJ2001;322,321-326. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Van Walraven, C, Hart, RG, Singer, DE, et al Oral anticoagulants vs aspirin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: an individual patient meta-analysis.JAMA2002;288,2441-2448. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Go, AS, Hylek, EM, Change, Y, et al Anticoagulation therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: how well do randomized trials translate into clinical practice.JAMA2003;290,2685-2692. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Hylek, EM, Go, AS, Chang, Y, et al Effect of intensity of oral anticoagulation on stroke severity and mortality in atrial fibrillation.N Engl J Med2003;349,1019-1026. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Matchar, DB, Samsa, GP, Cohen, SJ, et al Improving the quality of anticoagulation of patients with atrial fibrillation in managed care organizations: results of the managing anticoagulation services trial.Am J Med2002;113,42-51. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Chiquette, E, Amato, MG, Bussey, HI Comparison of an anticoagulation clinic with usual medical care: anticoagulation control, patient outcomes, and health care costs.Arch Intern Med1998;158,1641-1647. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Samsa, GP, Matchar, DB, Phillips, DL, et al Which approach to anticoagulation management is best?: Illustration of an interactive mathematical model to support informed decision making.J Thromb Thrombol2002;14,103-111. [CrossRef]
 
Lafata, JE, Martin, SA, Kaatz, S, et al The cost-effectiveness of different management strategies for patients on chronic warfarin therapy.J Gen Intern Med2000;15,31-37. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
O’Donnell, M, Weitz, JI Novel antithrombotic therapies for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.Am J Manag Care2004;10,S72-S82. [PubMed]
 
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

CHEST Journal Articles
Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation*: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)
Valvular and Structural Heart Disease*: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)
CHEST Collections
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543