Comparison of Warfarin use in terms of efficacy and safety in two different polyclinics.

objectiveThis study compared the efficacy and safety of warfarin in specialized international normalized ratio (INR) outpatient clinic (INR-C) and in general cardiology outpatient clinic (General-C).

methodsHerein, 381 consecutive patients with a regular follow-up at INR-C (n=233) or General-C (n=148) for at least 1 year were retrospectively included. While INR-C patients were followed by a single experienced trained nurse, General-C patients were followed by a different cardiologist who worked in a rotational principle every month. During controls, demographic characteristics, INR levels, bleeding events, ischemic stroke, and transient ischemic attacks in the last 1 year were recorded. Primary endpoint was defined as the evaluation of the combined major bleeding and ischemic event, and secondary endpoint was defined as the evaluation of them separately.

resultsThe mean age of the patients was 62±12.86 and 43.8% were male. Mean time in therapeutic range (TTR) level was statistically higher in INR-C than that in General-C (68.8%±15.88 and 51.6%±23.04, respectively; p<0.001). Primary outcomes were significantly higher in General-C than that in INR-C [13.5% (20) and 6.4% (15); respectively, p=0.020]. Overall, major bleeding was observed in 25 patients (6.5%) and (2.6%) ischemic event was observed in 10 patients. In General-C patients, both major bleeding (8.8% vs. 5.2%; p=0.163) and the ischemic event (4.7% vs. 1.3%; p=0.051) were more, and no statistically significant differences were detected between the two clinics.

conclusionThe findings of our study demonstrate that patients followed in INR-C had higher TTR levels and lower bleeding and ischemic events rates that those followed in General-C.