Guest guest Posted December 12, 2004 Report Share Posted December 12, 2004 Kathleen wrote: <<valve replacements call for an INR range of 3.0 to 4.0.>> I read a study of a large population of afibbers (thousands, I think) in which the optimal range was quite narrow. 2.2-2.3. Below that, the death rate rose dramatically, and above that it also rose dramatically. The curve was a classic parabola, rather steep on the sides too. The steepest side was above 2.3. Titanium valves apparently pose a very different set of risks than AF. - OU alum in MI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2004 Report Share Posted December 12, 2004 > Kathleen wrote: > <<valve replacements call for an INR range of 3.0 to 4.0.>> > > I read a study of a large population of afibbers (thousands, I think) in > which the optimal range was quite narrow. 2.2-2.3. Below that, the death > rate rose dramatically, and above that it also rose dramatically. The > curve was a classic parabola, rather steep on the sides too. The > steepest side was above 2.3. > > Titanium valves apparently pose a very different set of risks than AF. > > - OU alum in MI > , are you thinking of this.... Oral anticoagulation and risk of death: a medical record linkage study http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi? tool=pmcentrez & artid=131183 the study involved 42451 people (58% had AF) I think it's worth stressing that this narrow INR range is unlikely to be relevant to the people with AF and low stroke risk (i.e. those AFers who don't require warfarin) -- D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2004 Report Share Posted December 12, 2004 sorry about the link Oral anticoagulation and risk of death: a medical record linkage study http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi? tool=pmcentrez & artid=131183 if it doesn't work try http://tinyurl.com/3ldts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2004 Report Share Posted December 12, 2004 wrote: <<, are you thinking of this.... http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez & artid=131183 >> Exactly. My memory failed to get the slope of the right side (INR increaseing) curve correct, though. It is less steep, but it climbs much higher, which is the salient aspect. I took advantage of the PDF option and saved a copy so I can print it and show it to the " coumadin nurses " who had orders to keep my INR between the classic 2.0 and 3.0. I have insisted on keeping it to the low side, even though they are happy with any value within the ordered range. Thanks . I remembered the conclusion correctly, now I can resort to the whole story if need be. - OU alum in MI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.