Journals / Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni / 2020 / Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 3

Determining INR Awareness of the Patients who Use Warfarin and Rates of Achieving the Target Dosage

Pages
357–363
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Various modern methods should beenabled for surveillance and the patients who are not in the therapeutic range should be followed closer.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Warfarin is the most frequently used therapy as an oral anticoagulant medication for reducing the risk of thromboemboliccomplications.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, poor adherence to therapy may cause ineffective INR levels with increased complication risk.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Various modern methods should beenabled for surveillance and the patients who are not in the therapeutic range should be followed closer.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: Warfarin is the most frequently used therapy as an oral anticoagulant medication for reducing the risk of thromboemboliccomplications. However, poor adherence to therapy may cause ineffective INR levels with increased complication risk. Inour study, we aimed to show the rates of INR awareness of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) using warfarin and whether theyachieved the targeted INR values.Methods: In this study, 300 male (60%, n=180) and female (40%, n=120) patients over 18 years of age who applied to warfarinpolyclinic and were receiving warfarin treatment due to AF were included. The levels of INR between 2-3 were estimated as effective.Same questionnaire was applied to all patients.Results: Our study showed that 57% of the patients who used warfarin were not in the therapeutic range. We also determined thatINR awareness was extremely low in the majority of the patients. In this study, 72.2% of the patients who used warfarin did notknow the definition of INR, 68% of the patients did not know the side effects of the medicine, 75.7% of the patients did not knowthe precautions needed to be taken in daily life and 83.7% of the patients did not know the foods rich in vitamin K. Patients whoknew the meaning of INR were more likely have INR levels in the effective range, but these rates were not statistically significant.There was no statistically significant relationship between the educational level, marital status, and INR control frequency of thepatients with the achievement of targeted INR levels.Conclusion: At the beginning of the warfarin treatment, advantages and disadvantages should be balanced by the doctor. Thepatient and patient’s relatives should be informed directly and comprehensibly about the effects and side effects of the medicine,as well as the interactions, pursuance and precautions need to be taken in daily life. Various modern methods should beenabled for surveillance and the patients who are not in the therapeutic range should be followed closer.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMIR, N., YÜCELEN, S. Y., ÇETİN, E. G., KALKAN, K., ÖZTÜRKMEN, Y. A., DEMİR, E., BASAT, S., BORLU, F., ÇALIM, A., ALTUNTAŞ, Y. (2020). Determining INR Awareness of the Patients who Use Warfarin and Rates of Achieving the Target Dosage. Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni, Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 3, 357–363. https://ajindex.com/articles/363400

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Adalet K. Atriyal Fibrilasyon. In: Adalet K, editor. Klinik kardiyoloji tanı ve tedavi. İstanbul: İstanbul Tıp Kitabevi; 2013. p. 845
  2. Fitzmaurice DA, Hobbs FD, Jowett S, Mant J, Murray ET, Holder R, et al. Screening versus routine practice in detection of atrial fibrillation in patients aged 65 or over: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007;335:383
  3. Hobbs FD, Fitzmaurice DA, Mant J, Murray E, Jowett S, Bryan S, et al. A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness study of systematic screening (targeted and total population screening) versus routine practice for the detection of atrial fibrillation in people aged 65 and over. The SAFE study. Health Technol Assess 2005;9:iii–iv, ix–x, 1–74
  4. Wilson SJ, Wells PS, Kovacs MJ, Lewis GM, Martin J, Burton E, et al. Comparing the quality of oral anticoagulant management by anticoagulation clinics and by family physicians: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 2003;169:293–8. 5. van Walraven C, Jennings A, Oake N, Fergusson D, Forster AJ. Effect of study setting on anticoagulation control: a systematic review and metaregression. Chest 2006;129:1155–66
  5. Hylek EM, Evans-Molina C, Shea C, Henault LE, Regan S. Major hemorrhage and tolerability of warfarin in the first year of therapy among elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2007;115:2689–96
  6. Franco V, Polanczyk CA, Clausell N, Rohde LE. Role of dietary vitamin K intake in chronic oral anticoagulation: prospective evidence from observational and randomized protocols. Am J Med 2004;116:651–6
  7. Khan T, Wynne H, Wood P, Torrance A, Hankey C, Avery P, et al. Dietary vitamin K influences intra-individual variability in anticoagulant response to warfarin. Br J Haematol 2004;124:348–54
  8. Ellis RJ, Mayo MS, Bodensteiner DM. Ciprofloxacin-warfarin coagulopathy: a case series. Am J Hematol 2000;63:28–31
  9. Aidit S, Soh YC, Yap CS, Khan TM, Neoh CF, Shaharuddin S, et al. Effect of Standardized Warfarin Treatment Protocol on Anticoagulant Effect: Comparison of a Warfarin Medication Therapy Adherence Clinic with Usual Medical Care. Front Pharmacol 2017;8:637
  10. Orensky IA, Holdford DA. Predictors of noncompliance with warfarin therapy in an outpatient anticoagulation clinic. Pharmacotherapy 2005;25:1801–8
  11. Schauer DP, Moomaw CJ, Wess M, Webb T, Eckman MH. Psychosocial risk factors for adverse outcomes in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation receiving warfarin. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:1114–9
  12. Newby LK, LaPoin