Low-intensity Oral Anticoagulation Versus High-intensity Oral Anticoagulation in Patients with Mechanical Bileaflet Prosthetic Heart Valves.
- Author:
Seong Cheol JEONG
1
;
Mi Jung KIM
;
Chang Min SONG
;
Woo Shik KIM
;
Yong Chul SHIN
;
Byung Yul KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, National Medical Center, Korea. ice-bar@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Anticoagulants;
Mechanical heart valve;
Thromboembolism;
Hemorrhage
- MeSH:
Anticoagulants;
Cerebral Hemorrhage;
Heart;
Heart Valve Prosthesis;
Heart Valves;
Hematuria;
Hemorrhage;
Humans;
International Normalized Ratio;
Prostheses and Implants;
Retrospective Studies;
Risk Factors;
Thromboembolism;
Uterine Hemorrhage;
Warfarin
- From:The Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2008;41(4):430-438
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: All the patients with mechanical valves require warfarin therapy in order to prevent them from developing thromboembolic complications. According to the ACC/AHA practice guidelines, after AVR with bileaflet mechanical prostheses in patients with no risk factors, warfarin is indicated to achieve an INR of 2.0 to 3.0. After MVR with any mechanical valve, warfarin is indicated to achieve an INR of 2.5 to 3.5. But in our clinical experience, bleeding complications (epistaxis, hematuria, uterine bleeding, intracerebral hemorrhage etc.) frequently developed in patients who maintained their INR within this value. So, we retrospectively reviewed the patients with bileaflet mechanical heart valve prosthesis and we determined the optimal anticoagulation value. MATERIAL AND METHOD: From January 1984 to February 2007, 311 patients have been followed up at a national medical center. We classified the AVR patients (n=60) into three groups as follows: an INR from 1.5 to 2.0 in Group I, an INR from 2.0 to 2.5 in Group II and an INR from 2.5 to 3.0 in Group III. We classified the MVR (n=171) and DVR (n=80) patients into four groups as follows: an INR from 1.5 to 2.0 in Group I, an INR from 2.0 to 2.5 in Group II, an INR from 2.5 to 3.0 in Group III and an INR from 3.0 to 3.5 in Group III. We compared the groups for their thromboembolic and bleeding complications by means of the Kaplan Meier method. RESULT: In the AVR patients, 2 thromboembolic complications and 4 bleeding complications occurred and the log rank test failed to identify any statistical significance between the groups for thethromboembolic complication rate, but groups I and II had lower bleeding complication rates than did group III. Thirteen thromboembolic complication and 15 bleeding complication occurred in the MVR and DVR patients, and the log rank test also failed to identify statistical significance between the groups for the thromboembolic complication rate, but groups I and II had lower bleeding complication rates that did groups III and IV. CONCLUSION: The thromboembolic complication rate was not statistically different between groups I and II and groups III and IV, but the bleeding complication rates of groups I and II were lower than those of groups III and IV. So this outcome encouraged us to continue using our low intensive anticoagulation regime, that is, an INR of 1.5 to 2.5.
