Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 61–66

Determinants and measures of quality in oral anticoagulation therapy



Background Anticoagulation management services or clinics have been recommended as the preferred method in the long-term management of oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists and have been shown to increase the time patients spend in the therapeutic range. This surrogate marker of the quality of anticoagulation control is a well accepted predictor of bleeding and thromboembolic events and is generally used as a quality measure. However, the method of calculating the time in the therapeutic range can give different results and there is no consensus on the methodology that should be used or the benchmark targets that should be aimed for. Additionally, the expected rates of bleeding and thromboembolic complications are dependent on the indications for anticoagulation in the patient population being evaluated. These issues need to be taken into account when setting quality standards for anticoagulation clinics. Methods An informal survey and group discussion with anticoagulation clinic personnel attending a workshop at the 9th National Conference on Anticoagulant Therapy was used to generate a list of pragmatic barriers to measuring these quality indicators and to share ideas on other quality markers. A narrative review of selected literature was used throughout the workshop to exemplify potential benchmark rates for therapeutic time in range, bleeding, and thromboembolic complication rates. Results Approximately 65% of the workshop attendees measure time in range in their anticoagulation clinics, however, only 15% used the linear interpolation method which has a quality measurement target of 65%. Less than half of the attendees measure bleeding or complication rates and very few adjust these rates based on the indication for anticoagulation. There was strong agreement regarding pragmatic barriers to collect this information and difficulties in extrapolating standards from the literature. Several clinics also measure the percent of extremely high International Normalized Ratios (INR) and also track late patients. Conclusions Using clinical trial bleeding and thromboembolic complication rates to set quality measurement targets for anticoagulation clinics may not be appropriate, given the inherent difference in these patient populations. Additionally, there are pragmatic issues affecting the completeness and accuracy of adverse event gathering outside of a trial scenario that could be misleading. The time in the therapeutic range, however, is relatively easy to calculate and is a well substantiated surrogate marker for complication rates and should be a standard quality indicator. Benchmark targets for time in range are dependent on the methodology used in the calculation and should be adjusted accordingly.


Anticoagulation Quality Prothrombin time Adverse events 


  1. 1.
    Ansell J, Hirsh J, Poller L, Bussey H, Jacobson A, Hylek E (2004) The pharmacology and management of the vitamin K antagonists: the seventh ACCP conference on antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy. Chest 126(3 Suppl):204S–233SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ansell JE, Hughes R (1996) Evolving models of warfarin management: anticoagulation clinics, patient self-monitoring, and patient self-management. Am Heart J 132(5):1095–1100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ansell JE, Buttaro ML, Thomas OV, Knowlton CH (1997) Consensus guidelines for coordinated outpatient oral anticoagulation therapy management. Anticoagulation guidelines task force. Ann Pharmacother 31(5):604–615PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schmitt L, Speckman J, Ansell J (2003) Quality assessment of anticoagulation dose management: comparative evaluation of measures of time-in-therapeutic range. J Thromb Thrombolysis 15(3):213–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loeliger EA (1985) Laboratory control, optimal therapeutic ranges, therapeutic quality control in oral anticoagulation. Acta Haematol 74(3):125–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosendaal FR, Cannegieter SC, van der Meer FJ, Briet E (1993) A method to determine the optimal intensity of oral anticoagulant therapy. Thromb Haemost 69(3):236–239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cannegieter SC, Rosendaal FR, Wintzen AR, van der Meer FJ, Vandenbroucke JP, Briet E (1995) Optimal oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with mechanical heart valves. N Engl J Med 333(1):11–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hylek EM, Skates SJ, Sheehan MA, Singer DE (1996) An analysis of the lowest effective intensity of prophylactic anticoagulation for patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 335(8):540–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hylek EM, Go AS, Chang Y et al (2003) Effect of intensity of oral anticoagulation on stroke severity and mortality in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 349(11):1019–1026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    White HD, Gruber M, Feyzi J et al (2007) Comparison of outcomes among patients randomized to warfarin therapy according to anticoagulant control: results from SPORTIF III and V. Arch Intern Med 167(3):239–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kearon C, Ginsberg JS, Kovacs MJ et al (2003) Comparison of low-intensity warfarin therapy with conventional-intensity warfarin therapy for long-term prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 349(7):631–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Walraven C, Jennings A, Oake N, Fergusson D, Forster AJ (2006) Effect of study setting on anticoagulation control: a systematic review and metaregression. Chest 129(5):1155–1166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heneghan C, Alonso-Coello P, Garcia-Alamino JM, Perera R, Meats E, Glasziou P (2006) Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 367(9508):404–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levine MN, Raskob G, Beyth RJ, Kearon C, Schulman S (2004) Hemorrhagic complications of anticoagulant treatment: the seventh ACCP conference on antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy. Chest 126(3 Suppl):287S–310SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cannegieter SC, Rosendaal FR, Briet E (1994) Thromboembolic and bleeding complications in patients with mechanical heart valve prostheses. Circulation 89(2):635–641PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Evans A, Kalra L (2001) Are the results of randomized controlled trials on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation generalizable to clinical practice? Arch Intern Med 161(11):1443–1447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Linkins LA, Choi PT, Douketis JD (2003) Clinical impact of bleeding in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 139(11):893–900PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salem DN, Stein PD, Al-Ahmad A et al (2004) Antithrombotic therapy in valvular heart disease—native and prosthetic: the seventh ACCP conference on antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy. Chest 126(3 Suppl):457S–482SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Risk factors for stroke, efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation (1994) Analysis of pooled data from five randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 154(13):1449–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Olsson SB (2003) Stroke prevention with the oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran compared with warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (SPORTIF III): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 362(9397):1691–1698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Albers GW, Diener HC, Frison L et al (2005) Ximelagatran vs warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial. JAMA 293(6):690–698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Connolly S, Pogue J, Hart R et al (2006) Clopidogrel plus aspirin versus oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in the Atrial fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for prevention of Vascular Events (ACTIVE W): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 367(9526):1903–1912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Segal JB, Streiff MB, Hofmann LV, Thornton K, Bass EB (2007) Management of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review for a practice guideline. Ann Intern Med 146(3):211–222PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Henry Ford HospitalDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations