Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRose, Adam J.
dc.contributor.authorBerlowitz, Dan R.
dc.contributor.authorMiller, Donald R.
dc.contributor.authorHylek, Elaine M.
dc.contributor.authorOzonoff, Al
dc.contributor.authorZhao, Shibei
dc.contributor.authorReisman, Joel I.
dc.contributor.authorAsh, Arlene S.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:34.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:13:07Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:13:07Z
dc.date.issued2012-04-01
dc.date.submitted2013-09-18
dc.identifier.citationJ Thromb Haemost. 2012 Apr;10(4):590-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2012.04649.x.
dc.identifier.issn1538-7836
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1538-7836.2012.04649.x
dc.identifier.pmid22288563
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/46654
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Not all clinicians target the same International Normalized Ratio (INR) for patients with a guideline-recommended target range of 2-3. A patient's mean INR value suggests the INR that was actually targeted. We hypothesized that sites would vary by mean INR, and that sites of care with mean values nearest to 2.5 would achieve better anticoagulation control, as measured by per cent time in therapeutic range (TTR). OBJECTIVES: To examine variations among sites in mean INR and the relationship with anticoagulation control in an integrated system of care. PATIENTS/METHODS: We studied 103,897 patients receiving oral anticoagulation with an expected INR target between 2 and 3 at 100 Veterans Health Administration (VA) sites from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2008. Key site-level variables were: proportion near 2.5 (that is, percentage of patients with mean INR between 2.3 and 2.7) and mean risk-adjusted TTR. RESULTS: Site mean INR ranged from 2.22 to 2.89; proportion near 2.5, from 30 to 64%. Sites' proportions of patients near 2.5, below 2.3 and above 2.7 were consistent from year to year. A 10 percentage point increase in the proportion near 2.5 predicted a 3.8 percentage point increase in risk-adjusted TTR (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Proportion of patients with mean INR near 2.5 is a site-level 'signature' of care and an implicit measure of targeted INR. This proportion varies by site and is strongly associated with site-level TTR. Our study suggests that sites wishing to improve TTR, and thereby improve patient outcomes, should avoid the explicit or implicit pursuit of non-standard INR targets.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherBlackwell Pub.
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=22288563&dopt=Abstract">Link to article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2012.04649.x
dc.subjectAdministration, Oral
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectAnticoagulants
dc.subjectBlood Coagulation
dc.subjectDrug Monitoring
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectGuideline Adherence
dc.subjectHealthcare Disparities
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectInternational Normalized Ratio
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectPhysician's Practice Patterns
dc.subjectPractice Guidelines as Topic
dc.subjectPredictive Value of Tests
dc.subjectQuality Indicators, Health Care
dc.subjectTime Factors
dc.subjectUnited States
dc.subjectUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs
dc.subjectCardiovascular Diseases
dc.subjectEpidemiology
dc.subjectHealth Services Research
dc.titleINR targets and site-level anticoagulation control: results from the Veterans AffaiRs Study to Improve Anticoagulation (VARIA)
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleJournal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH
dc.source.volume10
dc.source.issue4
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/qhs_pp/1113
dc.identifier.contextkey4598845
html.description.abstract<p>BACKGROUND: Not all clinicians target the same International Normalized Ratio (INR) for patients with a guideline-recommended target range of 2-3. A patient's mean INR value suggests the INR that was actually targeted. We hypothesized that sites would vary by mean INR, and that sites of care with mean values nearest to 2.5 would achieve better anticoagulation control, as measured by per cent time in therapeutic range (TTR).</p> <p>OBJECTIVES: To examine variations among sites in mean INR and the relationship with anticoagulation control in an integrated system of care.</p> <p>PATIENTS/METHODS: We studied 103,897 patients receiving oral anticoagulation with an expected INR target between 2 and 3 at 100 Veterans Health Administration (VA) sites from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2008. Key site-level variables were: proportion near 2.5 (that is, percentage of patients with mean INR between 2.3 and 2.7) and mean risk-adjusted TTR.</p> <p>RESULTS: Site mean INR ranged from 2.22 to 2.89; proportion near 2.5, from 30 to 64%. Sites' proportions of patients near 2.5, below 2.3 and above 2.7 were consistent from year to year. A 10 percentage point increase in the proportion near 2.5 predicted a 3.8 percentage point increase in risk-adjusted TTR (P < 0.001).</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: Proportion of patients with mean INR near 2.5 is a site-level 'signature' of care and an implicit measure of targeted INR. This proportion varies by site and is strongly associated with site-level TTR. Our study suggests that sites wishing to improve TTR, and thereby improve patient outcomes, should avoid the explicit or implicit pursuit of non-standard INR targets.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathqhs_pp/1113
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences
dc.source.pages590-5


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record