In-home Compared With In-Clinic Warfarin Therapy Monitoring in Mechanical Heart Valves: A Population-Based Study.

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate differences in time in therapeutic range (TTR), major bleeding, thromboembolism, and survival comparing in-home and in-clinic international normalized ratio monitoring for patients with mechanical heart valves receiving warfarin anticoagulation.Patients and MethodsAn observational population-based study of 383 patients (mean ± SD age, 61.5±14.1 years; 38.6% female) with mechanical heart valves (aortic, 77.8%; mitral, 31.1%; tricuspid, 1%; pulmonic 0.2%; and multiple, 9.7%) was performed from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017. The target international normalized ratio was 2.5 for 199 patients (52.0%) and 3.0 for 184 (48.0). Of these patients, 37.9% (n=145) were managed by in-home monitoring (cases) and 62.1% (n=238) were monitored in the clinic (controls).ResultsDuring median follow-up of 3.1 years, mean ± SD TTR was similar between in-home (66.6%±19.2%) and in-clinic (67.2%±19.8%) monitoring (P=.76). There were no differences between the in-home and in-clinic groups regarding survival to major bleeding (5.7% per person-year vs 6.7% per person-year; P=.66) or thrombotic complications (2.3% vs 1.8%; P=.56). In-home monitoring was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.83; P=.01) on univariate analysis; however, this was no longer apparent when controlling for age and baseline left ventricular ejection fraction.ConclusionIn this real-world population-based study of patients with mechanical heart valves, in-home monitoring was equivalent to in-clinic monitoring regarding TTR and important clinical outcomes.