Anticoagulant treatment at a specialized outpatient anticoagulant therapy unit, a descriptive study

Kim Ekblom¹ , Johan Hultdin¹ , Bo Carlberg² and Tage Strand²

¹Department of Medical Biosciences, Clinical Chemistry, Umeå University Hospital, 901 85 Umeå, Sweden

²Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Medicine, Umeå University Hospital, 901 85 Umeå, Sweden

author email corresponding author email

Thrombosis Journal 2005, 3:20doi:10.1186/1477-9560-3-20


Published:	8 December 2005

Abstract

Background

The indications for continuous oral anticoagulant treatment, the target interval and the procedures for withdrawing treatment have changed in the last 10 years.

Methods

Patients on continuous oral anticoagulant treatment at the Outpatient Anticoagulant Clinic at Umeå University Hospital in 2002 were included in a descriptive study (n = 900). 263 of those had a mechanical heart valve prosthesis. Only patient records for patients with other indications than mechanical heart valve prosthesis were examined. 582 of those records were found. In the 55 remaining patients some clinical information was retrieved from the computerised warfarin dosage database. These latter, more unsure clinical data, are presented separately. Anticoagulant treatment was discontinued if lack of proper indication or presence of too high risk for hemorrhagic complications were found.

Results

The prevalence of continuous oral anticoagulant treatment in the uptake area was 0.65%. The most common target interval was INR 2.1–3.0, but patients with a mechanical heart valve prosthesis were often treated more aggressively, i.e. with a higher INR target interval. Of the patients on continuous treatment, 26.6% of the INR values were outside 2.0–3.0. The most common reasons for oral anticoagulant treatment were atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valve prosthesis, in contrast to earlier findings in studies of our population in 1987 and 1990. We found 90 patients (10.0%) without proper indication for oral anticoagulant treatment or too high risk, and their treatment was discontinued.

Conclusion

In patients on oral anticoagulant therapy, re-evaluation of indications and risks resulted in a substantial number of treatment withdrawals. There have been major changes in treatment indications during the last decade, possibly due to rapid development of knowledge in the field of thrombosis risk factors. Treatment should be re-considered once a year.