Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31268487›Full record

ArticleJAMA cardiology2019

Association Between Warfarin Control Metrics and Atrial Fibrillation Outcomes in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation.

Sean D Pokorney, DaJuanicia N Holmes, Laine Thomas, Gregg C Fonarow, Peter R Kowey, James A Reiffel, Daniel E Singer, James V Freeman, Bernard J Gersh, Kenneth W Mahaffey and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Machine learning for predicting thrombotic recurrence in antiphospholipid syndrome.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Big Data and Atrial Fibrillation: Current Understanding and New Opportunities.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Sean D PokorneyDivision of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
DaJuanicia N HolmesDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Laine ThomasDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Gregg C FonarowDivision of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Peter R KoweyDivision of Cardiology, Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania.
James A ReiffelDivision of Cardiology, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Daniel E SingerDepartment of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
James V FreemanDivision of Cardiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Bernard J GershDivision of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Kenneth W MahaffeyDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California.
Elaine M HylekDepartment of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Gerald V NaccarelliPenn State Heart and Vascular Institute, Penn State Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Michael D EzekowitzSidney Kimmell Medical School, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Jonathan P PicciniDivision of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Eric D PetersonDivision of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) Investigators
Clinical Research Institute · USColumbia University · USLankenau Institute for Medical Research · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USMayo Clinic · USPenn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center · USStanford University · USThomas Jefferson University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USYale University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Bleeding and thrombotic events (eg, stroke and systemic embolism) are common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) taking warfarin sodium despite a well-established therapeutic range. Objective: To evaluate whether history of therapeutic warfarin control in patients with AF is independently associated with subsequent bleeding or thrombotic events. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter cohort study of 176 primary care, cardiology, and electrophysiology clinics in the United States, data were obtained during 51 830 visits among 10 137 patients with AF in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) Registry; 5545 patients treated with warfarin were included in the bleeding analysis, and 5635 patients were included in the thrombotic event analysis. Patient follow-up was performed from June 29, 2010, to November 30, 2014. Data analysis was performed from August 4, 2016, to February 15, 2019. Exposures: Multiple measures of warfarin control within the preceding 6 months were analyzed: time in therapeutic range of 2.0 to 3.0, most recent international normalized ratio (INR), percentage of time that a patient had interpolated INR values less than 2.0 or greater than 3.0, INR variance, INR range, and percentage of INR values in therapeutic range. Main Outcomes and Measures: Association of INR measures, alone or in combination, with clinical factors and risk for thrombotic events and bleeding during the subsequent 6 months was assessed post hoc using logistic regression models. Results: A total of 5545 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.5 [9.8] years; 3184 [57.4%] male) with AF were included in the major bleeding analysis and 5635 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.5 [9.8] years; 3236 [57.4%] male) in the thrombotic event analysis. During a median follow-up of 1.5 years (interquartile range, 1.0-2.5 years), there were 339 major bleeds (6.1%) and 51 strokes (0.9%). Multiple metrics of warfarin control were individually associated with subsequent bleeding. After adjustment for clinical bleeding risk, 3 measures-time in therapeutic range (per 1-SD increase ≤55: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32), variation in INR values (aOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.47), and maximum INR (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.31)-remained associated with bleeding risk. Adding INR variance to a clinical risk model slightly increased the C statistic from 0.68 to 0.69 and had a net reclassification improvement index of 0.028 (95% CI, -0.029 to 0.067). No INR measures were associated with subsequent stroke risk. Conclusions and Relevance: Three metrics of prior warfarin control were associated with bleeding risk but only marginally more so than traditional clinical factors. This study did not identify any measures of INR control that were significantly associated with stroke risk.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationDrug MonitoringAgedAged, 80 and overAnticoagulantsCohort StudiesEmbolismFemaleHemorrhageHumansInternational Normalized RatioMaleRegistriesStrokeTreatment OutcomeWarfarinAnticoagulantsWarfarin

Identifiers

PMID31268487
PMCPMC6613340
OpenAlexW2954968704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.