Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRose, Adam J.
dc.contributor.authorOzonoff, Al
dc.contributor.authorBerlowitz, Dan R.
dc.contributor.authorAsh, Arlene S.
dc.contributor.authorReisman, Joel I.
dc.contributor.authorHylek, Elaine M.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:45.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:18:33Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:18:33Z
dc.date.issued2011-02-12
dc.date.submitted2011-07-05
dc.identifier.citationChest. 2011 Feb 10. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.10-2738">Link to article on publisher's site</a>
dc.identifier.issn0012-3692 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1378/chest.10-2738
dc.identifier.pmid21310837
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/47879
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Patients receiving oral anticoagulation should be tested often enough to optimize control, but excessive testing increases burden and cost. We examined the relationship between the follow-up interval after an in-range (2.0-3.0) INR and anticoagulation control. METHODS: We studied 104,451 patients receiving anticoagulation from 100 anticoagulation clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Most patients (98,877) recorded at least one in-range INR followed by another INR within 56 days. For each such patient, we selected the last in-range INR and characterized the interval between this "index value" and the next INR. The independent variable was site mean follow-up interval after an in-range INR. The dependent variable was site mean risk-adjusted percent time in therapeutic range (TTR). RESULTS: Site mean interval varied from 25-38 days. As the mean site follow-up interval became longer, risk-adjusted TTR was worse (-0.51% per day, p = 0.004). This relationship persisted when the index value was the first consecutive in-range INR (-0.63%, p < 0.001), or the second (-0.58%, p < 0.001), but not the third or greater (-0.12%, p = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Sites varied widely regarding follow-up intervals after in-range INR (25-38 days). Shorter intervals were generally associated with better anticoagulation control, but after a third consecutive in-range value, this relationship was greatly attenuated and no longer statistically significant. Our results suggest that a maximum interval of 28 days after the first or second in-range value and consideration of a longer interval after the third or greater consecutive in-range value may be appropriate.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=21310837&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.10-2738
dc.subjectAnticoagulants
dc.subjectBlood Coagulation
dc.subjectQuality Indicators, Health Care
dc.subjectInternational Normalized Ratio
dc.subjectBlood Coagulation Tests
dc.subjectBiostatistics
dc.subjectEpidemiology
dc.subjectHealth Services Research
dc.titleRe-Examining the Recommended Follow-Up Interval after an In-Range INR Value: Results from the Veterans AffaiRs Study to Improve Anticoagulation (VARIA)
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleChest
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/qhs_pp/990
dc.identifier.contextkey2086407
html.description.abstract<p>BACKGROUND: Patients receiving oral anticoagulation should be tested often enough to optimize control, but excessive testing increases burden and cost. We examined the relationship between the follow-up interval after an in-range (2.0-3.0) INR and anticoagulation control.</p> <p>METHODS: We studied 104,451 patients receiving anticoagulation from 100 anticoagulation clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Most patients (98,877) recorded at least one in-range INR followed by another INR within 56 days. For each such patient, we selected the last in-range INR and characterized the interval between this "index value" and the next INR. The independent variable was site mean follow-up interval after an in-range INR. The dependent variable was site mean risk-adjusted percent time in therapeutic range (TTR).</p> <p>RESULTS: Site mean interval varied from 25-38 days. As the mean site follow-up interval became longer, risk-adjusted TTR was worse (-0.51% per day, p = 0.004). This relationship persisted when the index value was the first consecutive in-range INR (-0.63%, p < 0.001), or the second (-0.58%, p < 0.001), but not the third or greater (-0.12%, p = 0.46).</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: Sites varied widely regarding follow-up intervals after in-range INR (25-38 days). Shorter intervals were generally associated with better anticoagulation control, but after a third consecutive in-range value, this relationship was greatly attenuated and no longer statistically significant. Our results suggest that a maximum interval of 28 days after the first or second in-range value and consideration of a longer interval after the third or greater consecutive in-range value may be appropriate.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathqhs_pp/990
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record