Anticoagulation Control in Patients With Ventricular Assist Devices.

ASAIO J 2017 Nov/Dec;63(6):759-765

From the *Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; †Department of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; ‡Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; §Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; ¶Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; ‖Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; and #Heart South Cardiovascular Group, Columbiana, Alabama.

Anticoagulation control has been associated with risk of thromboembolism and hemorrhage. Herein, we explore the relationship between anticoagulation control achieved in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients and evaluate the association with risk of thromboembolism and hemorrhage. Patients (19 years old or older) with a continuous flow LVAD placed from 2006 to 2012. Percent time spent in target range (PTTR) for international normalized ratio (INR) was estimated with target range of 2.0-3.0. Proportion of time spent in target range was categorized into PTTR > 60%, PTTR ≥ 50 < 60%, and PTTR < 50%. The relationship between PTTR and thromboembolism and hemorrhage was assessed. One hundred fifteen participants contributed 624.5 months of follow-up time. Only 20% of patients achieved anticoagulation control (PTTR > 60% for INR range of 2-3). After adjusting for chronic kidney disease, history of diabetes, history of atrial fibrillation, and age at implant, compared with patients with PTTR < 50%, the relative risk of thromboembolism in patients with PTTR ≥ 60% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14-0.96; p = 0.042) was significantly lower, but not for patients with a PTTR of ≥ 50 < 60% (HR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.02-1.82; p = 0.16). The relative risk for hemorrhage was also significantly lower among patients with a PTTR ≥ 60% (HR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.21-0.98; p = 0.045), but not among those with PTTR of ≥ 50 < 60% (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.14-1.56; p = 0.22). This current study demonstrates that LVAD patients remain in the INR target range an average of 42.9% of the time. To our knowledge, this is the first report with regard to anticoagulation control as assessed by PTTR and its association with thromboembolism, hemorrhage, or death among patients with ventricular assist devices (VADs).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAT.0000000000000592DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5662489PMC
May 2018
55 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

≥ 60%
20
anticoagulation control
20
pttr ≥
20
target range
16
patients pttr
16
thromboembolism hemorrhage
16
risk thromboembolism
12
ventricular assist
12
pttr
12
patients
10
pttr 50%
8
pttr 60%
8
lower patients
8
60% pttr
8
relative risk
8
lvad patients
8
time spent
8
patients ventricular
8
assist devices
8
spent target
8

Similar Publications