Intensity of Anticoagulation with Warfarin and Risk of Adverse Events in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability of patients receiving warfarin to maintain an international normalized ratio (INR) within the desired therapeutic range is important for both efficacy and risk of adverse events. It is unclear whether the desired INR is maintained in patients receiving warfarin who present to the emergency department (ED) and whether they have a higher rate of adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intensity of anticoagulation with warfarin and the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic complications in patients in the ED. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed using a convenience sample of patients receiving warfarin and presenting to the ED over an 18-week period. Data were collected using a standardized form that included chief complaint, history of present illness, past medical history, medication history, and allergy status. Information from the physical examination, laboratory results, and other diagnostic tests obtained as part of routine assessment in the ED, was used as necessary. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients whose INR was within, above, or below the desired therapeutic range. Bleeding complications and thromboembolic events were recorded in an attempt to determine the relationship between the intensity of anticoagulation and adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Two hundred one patients were included, with a mean (SD) age of 74.0 (13.2) years; 53.7% were female. Primary indications for warfarin were atrial fibrillation (75.6%) and venous thromboembolic disease (14.9%). A therapeutic INR was observed in 88 patients (43.8%; 95% CI 37.1 to 50.7), while 45 patients (22.4%; 95% CI 17.2 to 28.7) and 68 patients (33.8%; 95% CI 27.6 to 40.6) had subtherapeutic and supratherapeutic INRs, respectively. Overall, there were 28 (18 major and 10 minor) bleeding complications (13.9%; 95% CI 9.8 to 19.4) and 4 thromboembolic events (2.0%; 95% CI 0.6 to 5.2). Among patients with a bleeding complication, 14 (50.0%) had a supratherapeutic INR, while 2 patients who experienced a thromboembolic event (50.0%) had a subtherapeutic INR. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients receiving warfarin on presentation to the ED had INRs outside the desired therapeutic range. By establishing the impact of warfarin-related adverse events in this population, focused interventions can be established in this setting to address factors that can be targeted to reduce these events.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".