Prior studies have reported strong associations
between TTR and the efficiency and safety of the
treatment.[
1,
9,
10] One of the basic principles behind
keeping the TTR percentage high is undoubtedly
patient compliance.[
11] Since the preoperative,
operative, and postoperative processes for heart valve
replacement patients are much more demanding than
those for DVT patients, we designed this study based
on the assumption that treatment compliance may
be better in these patients. Therefore, to compare
the efficacy and safety of warfarin treatment in
DVT and prosthetic mitral valve patient groups
were compared in terms of TTR percentage and
complication rates.
It is a known fact that the demographic
characteristics of the patients are associated with
effective anticoagulation.[12,13] In our study, we
evaluated both patient groups in terms of demographic
data, and we could not find a statistically significant
difference between the groups. The homogeneity of
the demographic data made the results of the study
valuable.
There are limited studies examining the TTR
percentages of patients using warfarin for different
indications. However, there are no comparisons
of different indications in these studies. In one of
these studies, the median TTR percentage in DVT
patients using warfarin was reported as 71.1%.[14]
In another study, the median TTR percentage was
reported to be 60% in patients with mechanical
prosthetic valves.[15] In our study, both the first
three-and six-month TTR percentages in the MVR
group were found to be statistically significantly
higher than those in the DVT group. One of the
main reasons is that the prosthesis valve operation
process is much more demanding than the DVT
treatment process, so patient compliance is likely
to be higher. In our opinion, another reason is that
MVR patients require more hospital visits than the
DVT group. In our study, when patient groups were
evaluated in terms of total hospital admissions during
the six-month follow-up, there was a statistically
significantly higher number of admissions in the
MVR group. While DVT patients mostly went to the
hospital for INR control alone, MVR patients were
frequently admitted for wound site evaluation and
cardiac routine examinations, particularly in the first
postoperative month. In addition, it was understood
from the outpatient clinic registry system that these
patients were immediately admitted to the hospital
even with noncardiac infectious or noninfectious
symptoms.
There are reported results regarding the
relationship between TTR and bleeding
complications. It was reported that the rate of
major bleeding complications was reported between
1.0 and 2.36 in 100 patients using warfarin.[14,15]
In the study of Kavasoglu et al.,[16] which included
415 patients using warfarin, the rate of major
bleeding was reported as 2.6%.
When evaluated in terms of bleeding and
complications related to supratherapeutic INR in our
study, there was no statistically significant difference
between the groups. However, the mean TTR
percentages of patients with bleeding complications
in both groups were below 60% both in three months
and six months, and these results were consistent with
the literature.[9] Being outside of the TTR does not
necessarily lead to complications. There are patients
with high INR who were incidentally discovered
in our follow-ups and did not have any symptoms
or complications. Therefore, although there is a serious correlation between being out of TTR and the
incidence of complications, this will not be an absolute
relationship. We think that this is the reason there
was no statistically significant difference between the
groups in this sense.
When the groups were evaluated independently,
it was observed that the TTR percentage in the first
six months was higher in both groups compared to
the first three months. This led us to think that
the time elapsed since the initiation of treatment
increased the TTR percentage. Therefore, these
findings can be interpreted as indicating that the
quality of warfarin therapy is largely dependent on
the time elapsed since the initiation of therapy.
The number of INR measurements may have
been effective in the emergence of the statistically
significant difference regarding the TTR percentages
stated above. In the WARFARIN-TR study
conducted in our country, patients monitored for one
year with an INR ≤8 (n=1,752) were reported to have
statistically significantly lower TTR levels than those
with an INR >8.[17] In our study, in accordance with
the literature, the number of total INR measurements
for six months in the MVR group was statistically
significantly higher than in the DVT group.
One of the reasons for the better TTR percentage
in the MVR group can be attributed to the knowledge
of or familiarity with therapy, which are a large
part of treatment compliance. It was reported that
patients who had a low level of knowledge regarding
warfarin therapy experienced more problems in terms
of their adherence to the medication.[18] Although
most of the MVR patients were discharged with the
subtherapeutic INR, they were already on medication
at discharge. In other words, this was not the first
time they used warfarin when they left the hospital.
When viewed from this aspect, this may have caused a
difference in the patient groups in terms of acceptance
of the disease and compliance with treatment.
There are several limitations to this study. The
study group consisted of a relatively small sample size
compared to large registers. The study was planned in
a retrospective manner. Furthermore, we did not have
enough data on possible confounder variables, such as
educational status, personal income data, occupation,
and caregiver availability, which may have affected
our results.
In conclusion, we found that more MVR
patients remained in the therapeutic range than DVT patients due to the high awareness of therapy
process influenced by the difficulty of the MVR
procedure and the frequent hospital visits of
these patients. Therefore, it may be beneficial to
increase the frequency of follow-up examinations or
measurements of INR in patients who have started
warfarin treatment for an indication other than
valve replacement. Studies with larger sample sizes,
different warfarin usage indications, and expanded
sets of sociocultural demographic data of patients will
provide further clarification.
Ethics Committee Approval: The study protocol was
approved by the Katip Çelebi University Faculty of Medicine
Ethics Committee (Date/no: 19/11/2020-GOKAE-0609).
The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of
the Declaration of Helsinki.
Patient Consent for Publication: A written informed
consent was obtained from each patient.
Data Sharing Statement: The data that support the
findings of this study are available from the corresponding
author upon reasonable request.
Conflict of Interest: The author declared no conflicts of
interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of
this article.
Funding: The author received no financial support for the
research and/or authorship of this article.