Implications of using different methods to characterise anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses.

OBJECTIVE:Characterisation of anticoagulant control is fundamental to investigations of its association with clinical outcome. Anticoagulant control depends on several factors. This paper aims to illustrate the implications of different methods for measuring and analysing anticoagulant control in pa...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Francesca Fiorentino, Chris A Rogers, Alan J Bryan, Gianni D Angelini, Barnaby C Reeves
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4079318?pdf=render
id doaj-752e1629635d483eb6acedd441b68e0e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-752e1629635d483eb6acedd441b68e0e2020-11-24T21:51:48ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032014-01-0197e9832310.1371/journal.pone.0098323Implications of using different methods to characterise anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses.Francesca FiorentinoChris A RogersAlan J BryanGianni D AngeliniBarnaby C ReevesOBJECTIVE:Characterisation of anticoagulant control is fundamental to investigations of its association with clinical outcome. Anticoagulant control depends on several factors. This paper aims to illustrate the implications of different methods for measuring and analysing anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses. METHODS:International normalised ratio (INR) data collected during the 10-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial were analysed. We considered the influence of: 3 different target INR ranges; anticoagulant control expressed as the proportion of INR readings (PoR) vs. anticoagulant control follow-up time (PoT); 3 ways of describing the profile of anticoagulant control over time. RESULTS:Different target INR ranges dramatically influenced derived measures of anticoagulant control; the PoT within the target range varied from 88% for the widest to 28% for narrowest range. Overall distributions of PoR and PoT observations were similar but differed by up to ± 20% for individuals; PoT exceeded PoR when control was good but was less than PoR when control was poor. Classifying PoT outside the target range showed that widely varying combinations of PoT too high and too low are possible across individuals. CONCLUSIONS:Researchers' choices about methods for measuring and quantifying anticoagulant control markedly influence the values derived from INR readings. The use of different methods across studies makes it difficult or impossible to compare findings and to establish an evidence base for clinical practice. Methods for quantifying anticoagulant control should be standardised.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4079318?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Francesca Fiorentino
Chris A Rogers
Alan J Bryan
Gianni D Angelini
Barnaby C Reeves
spellingShingle Francesca Fiorentino
Chris A Rogers
Alan J Bryan
Gianni D Angelini
Barnaby C Reeves
Implications of using different methods to characterise anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Francesca Fiorentino
Chris A Rogers
Alan J Bryan
Gianni D Angelini
Barnaby C Reeves
author_sort Francesca Fiorentino
title Implications of using different methods to characterise anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses.
title_short Implications of using different methods to characterise anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses.
title_full Implications of using different methods to characterise anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses.
title_fullStr Implications of using different methods to characterise anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses.
title_full_unstemmed Implications of using different methods to characterise anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses.
title_sort implications of using different methods to characterise anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2014-01-01
description OBJECTIVE:Characterisation of anticoagulant control is fundamental to investigations of its association with clinical outcome. Anticoagulant control depends on several factors. This paper aims to illustrate the implications of different methods for measuring and analysing anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses. METHODS:International normalised ratio (INR) data collected during the 10-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial were analysed. We considered the influence of: 3 different target INR ranges; anticoagulant control expressed as the proportion of INR readings (PoR) vs. anticoagulant control follow-up time (PoT); 3 ways of describing the profile of anticoagulant control over time. RESULTS:Different target INR ranges dramatically influenced derived measures of anticoagulant control; the PoT within the target range varied from 88% for the widest to 28% for narrowest range. Overall distributions of PoR and PoT observations were similar but differed by up to ± 20% for individuals; PoT exceeded PoR when control was good but was less than PoR when control was poor. Classifying PoT outside the target range showed that widely varying combinations of PoT too high and too low are possible across individuals. CONCLUSIONS:Researchers' choices about methods for measuring and quantifying anticoagulant control markedly influence the values derived from INR readings. The use of different methods across studies makes it difficult or impossible to compare findings and to establish an evidence base for clinical practice. Methods for quantifying anticoagulant control should be standardised.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4079318?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT francescafiorentino implicationsofusingdifferentmethodstocharacteriseanticoagulantcontrolinpatientswithsecondgenerationmechanicalheartvalveprostheses
AT chrisarogers implicationsofusingdifferentmethodstocharacteriseanticoagulantcontrolinpatientswithsecondgenerationmechanicalheartvalveprostheses
AT alanjbryan implicationsofusingdifferentmethodstocharacteriseanticoagulantcontrolinpatientswithsecondgenerationmechanicalheartvalveprostheses
AT giannidangelini implicationsofusingdifferentmethodstocharacteriseanticoagulantcontrolinpatientswithsecondgenerationmechanicalheartvalveprostheses
AT barnabycreeves implicationsofusingdifferentmethodstocharacteriseanticoagulantcontrolinpatientswithsecondgenerationmechanicalheartvalveprostheses
_version_ 1725878543764684800