HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Butchart, E. G. Articles by Breckenridge, I. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Butchart, E. G. Articles by Breckenridge, I. M.

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Vol 2, 72-81, Copyright © 1988 by European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery

ARTICLES

Anticoagulation variability between centres: implications for comparative prosthetic valve assessment

EG Butchart, PA Lewis, EN Kulatilake and IM Breckenridge
Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.

One of the major determinants in the choice of a mechanical prosthetic valve is that valve's thromboembolic record but the thromboembolic (TE) rates may be substantially influenced by the levels of anticoagulation achieved. A detailed study of anticoagulation variability was undertaken in 834 patients who received one or more of a particular prosthesis (Medtronic-Hall) in one centre during a 7-year period from 1979 to 1987, but who attended 27 different anticoagulant clinics spread over a wide area. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to all 89 practising cardiac surgeons in the UK asking for their preferred range of International Normalised Ratio (INR) for patients with mechanical prosthetic valves. Both the local study (with 16,866 INR observations) and the national questionnaire (with a 53% response) revealed an enormous amount of variability. Median INR values (semi- interquartile range) varied from 2.2 to 3.9 (0.8-2.5) according to the anticoagulant clinic attended. The range of INR preferred by UK cardiac surgeons, but presumably not necessarily achieved, varied from 1.8-2.2 to 3.0-4.8, with 64% of surgeons preferring an INR less than 3.0. In comparison, standard US practice is to maintain prothrombin times equivalent to INR values of 4.0-5.0. Unless anticoagulant practice can be standardised internationally, comparison of TE complications between centres is meaningless, and casts doubt on the validity of TE rates quoted for particular prostheses, unless accompanied by a detailed analysis of anticoagulant control.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Edwin, M. M. Tettey, E. Aniteye, L. Sereboe, M. Tamatey, K. Entsua-Mensah, D. Kotei, and K. Frimpong-Boateng Freedom from thromboembolism despite prolonged inadequate anticoagulation BMJ Case Reports, September 15, 2009; 2009(sep15_1): bcr0720092066 - bcr0720092066. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				A. Lazo-Langner, R. Villa-Marquez, D. Hernandez-Hernandez, S. Rojas-Maya, and J. Piedras Intrahospital Correlation of the International Normalized Ratio Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, April 1, 2009; 15(2): 220 - 224. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Kulik, F. D. Rubens, P. S. Wells, C. Kearon, T. G. Mesana, J. van Berkom, and B.-K. Lam Early Postoperative Anticoagulation After Mechanical Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2006; 81(2): 770 - 781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A Geelani, S. Singh, A. Verma, A. Nagesh, V. Betigeri, and M. Nigam Anticoagulation in Patients with Mechanical Valves During Pregnancy Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, March 1, 2005; 13(1): 30 - 33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. A.M. Al-Lawati, M. Venkitraman, T. Al-Delaime, and J. Valliathu Pregnancy and mechanical heart valves replacement; dilemma of anticoagulation Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., August 1, 2002; 22(2): 223 - 227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. G. Butchart, N. Payne, H.-H. Li, K. Buchan, K. Mandana, and G. L. Grunkemeier Better anticoagulation control improves survival after valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2002; 123(4): 715 - 723. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				M. Dahm, G. Hafner, H. Schinzel, E. Mayer, D. Prufer, and H. Oelert Early antithrombotic management after valve replacement Eur. Heart J. Suppl., December 1, 2001; 3(suppl_Q): Q12 - Q15. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. G. Butchart, H.-H. Li, N. Payne, K. Buchan, and G. L. Grunkemeier Twenty years' experience with the Medtronic Hall valve J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2001; 121(6): 1090 - 1100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]