Comparison of two approaches of INR-follow-up and determinants of INR-stability

INTRODUCTION: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and treated with coumarins need a close follow-up of the international normalized ratio (INR)-values. This can be done by the general practitioner (GP) or by a haematologist in an outpatient hospital clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To compare both ways of follow-up and to investigate determinants of stable INR-patterns.

METHODS: Cross-sectional single-centre study in patients with AF treated at the UZ Brussel, a university hospital in Brussels. Of the 113 patients included in the study, 71 had their INR followed-up by their GP and 42 similar patients were followed-up by a haematologist. Data of these 113 patients were further analysed to identify possible determinants for stable INR-values.

RESULTS: The time in therapeutic range (TTR) did not significantly differ between both groups. However, patients in the GP-group had significantly more INR-values under 2.0 compared to patients from the haematologist-group (P =  0.044), whereas patients in the haematologist-group had significantly more INR-values above 3.0 compared to patients from the GP-group (P = 0.038). Reimbursement costs of both ways of follow-up were comparable, but the out-of-pocket costs for the patient were lower in the GP-group. The time since AF diagnosis was the only significant determinant predicting a higher TTR.

CONCLUSION: Both approaches of follow-up seem to lead to the same TTR, yielding no reason to advocate one approach above the other. However, the patient costs were lower when followed-up by the GP.