Assessment of warfarin algorithms for hospitalized adults: searching for a safe dosing strategy
- 197 Downloads
This study evaluates three warfarin dosing algorithms (Kimmel, Dawson, High Dose ≥ 2.5 mg) for hospitalized older adults. A random selection of 250 patients with overshoots (INR ≥ 5 after 48 h of hospitalization) and 250 patients without overshoots were accessed from a database of 12,107 inpatients ≥ 65 years treated with chronic warfarin during hospitalization between January 1, 2014 and June 30, 2016. Algorithms were retrospectively applied to patients 2 days prior to overshoots in the overshoot group, and 2 days prior to the maximum INR reached after 48 h of hospitalization in the non-overshoot group. Patients were categorized as overdosed or not overdosed and compared using descriptive statistics. Logistic regression modeling determined predictors for overshoots. There was no significant difference between overdose and non-overdose groups for progressing to overshoots by the Kimmel (51.0% vs. 48.7%, p = 0.67) or Dawson (48.5 vs. 57.9%, p = 0.19) algorithms. The Low Dose Group (≤ 2.5 mg) was significantly more likely to experience an overshoot than the High Dose Group (56.6% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.04). The Low Dose Group was more likely to be older (81.4% vs. 71.1%, p = 0.02), female (63.5% vs. 49.8%, p = 0.02), weigh less (71.3 ± 21.9 vs. 79 ± 23.1, p = 0.002), and be prescribed amiodarone (16.6% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.01). While none of the algorithms predicted overshoots in logistic regression modeling, weight over 70 kg and black race remained protective. The High Dose Algorithm revealed that providers appropriately gave lower doses to patients at highest risk for warfarin sensitivity. Future studies are needed to investigate tools for inpatient warfarin dosing in older adults.
KeywordsWarfarin Inpatients International normalized ratio Dose algorithm
The authors would like to acknowledge the Center for Health Innovations and Outcomes Research at Northwell Health for their support.
The authors would like to acknowledge the New York State Empire Clinical Research Investigator Program (ECRIP) and the Center for Health Innovations and Outcomes Research at Northwell Health for their support.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to report. All authors confirm that they have had full access to data and contributed to drafting of the paper.
- 7.Garcia DA, Schwartz MJ (2011) Warfarin therapy: tips and tools for better control: monitoring patients on warfarin therapy is challenging. The tools highlighted here–from online forums and Web-based dosing calculators to patient education materials and self-monitors–can help. J Fam Pract 60(2):70–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Van Spall HG, Wallentin L, Yusuf S, Eikelboom JW, Nieuwlaat R, Yang S et al (2012) Variation in warfarin dose adjustment practice is responsible for differences in the quality of anticoagulation control between centers and countries: an analysis of patients receiving warfarin in the RE-LY trial. Circulation. 126:2309–2316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Holbrook A, Schulman S, Witt DM, Vandvik PO, Fish J, Kovacs MJ et al (2012) Evidence-based management of anticoagulant therapy: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 141(2 Suppl):e152S–e184SCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar