Warfarin or acenocoumarol: which is better in the management of oral anticoagulants?

Warfarin is employed more frequently than acenocoumarol because of its longer half-life (36 h), theoretically providing more stable anticoagulation, and avoiding factor VII fluctuations that potentially occur during acenocoumarol treatment (half-life 10 h). The aim of our study was to compare acenocoumarol with warfarin in the same group of 103 patients who started oral anticoagulation with acenocoumarol and then changed to warfarin. In these patients we compared the previous period of six months on acenocoumarol treatment (July-December 1996) with a new six-month period on warfarin (July-December 1997). We wished to know whether warfarin could improve the quality and the stability of oral anticoagulation of our patients and whether there was a difference between the two drugs in the weekly mean dose per patient. Moreover in order to detect the possible daily fluctuation of factor VII, we evaluated a further group of 54 patients. A subgroup of these patients was treated with warfarin while another received acenocoumarol. In the first group of patients, 1,158 and 1,064 PTs were carried out with acenocoumarol and warfarin, respectively. The percentage of PTs in the therapeutic range was 59% with acenocoumarol and 62% with warfarin (p=0.4). The mean number of visits per patient was 12 and 11, and the mean number of visits in the therapeutic range was 7 and 7, respectively. The last check in file method did not show any difference between the two drugs. Overdose states were 51 (4.4%) with acenocoumarol and 30 (2.8%) with warfarin (p=0.4). A good correlation (r=0.92) was found between the acenocoumarol and the warfarin weekly mean dose. The mean warfarin/acenocoumarol weekly dose ratio was 2.08 (range: 1.25-3.30; CI 95%: 1.99-2.16). In the second group of patients, factor VII levels with both drugs were higher 24 h after administration than 16 h after, showing that their daily fluctuation was independent of the drug's half-life, since factor VII levels in patients with a low vitamin K intake were not increased. Our results showed that warfarin did not appear to be better than acenocoumarol in the performance of an Anticoagulation Clinic in terms of PTs within the therapeutic range per patient. It seems that the behaviour of factor VII was affected by the intake of vitamin K rather than by the short half-life of acenocoumarol.

Comparison between recombinant and rabbit thromboplastin in the management of patients on oral anticoagulant therapy.

The aim of this study was to compare recombinant thromboplastin (rTF, ISI = 0.82) with rabbit thromboplastin (RT, ISI = 1.46) in order to evaluate which performed better in our thrombosis centre. To this purpose we randomized 67 patients to be double-blind monitored in two groups for three months either with PT performed with RT or with PT performed with rTF. After this period each patient was shifted to the other group. We considered the following as end points of the study: percentages of PT results within the therapeutic range, number of visits and therapeutic dose adjustments per patient. The "last check in file" method was used to evaluate the laboratory quality of oral anticoagulation for both thromboplastins. The results show that there was no difference in the number of visits per patient between the two groups: 6.9 +/- 1.7 in the rTF group versus 7.3 +/- 1.9 in the RT group (p = 0.19). The variations of therapeutic dose per patient were not different in the two groups: the dose was changed once (range 0-8) in the rTF group and once (range 0-11) in the RT group (p = 0.15). The percentages of PT results within the therapeutic range were not different between the two groups. The "last check in file" method showed similar percentages in both groups: PT results in the therapeutic range were 67.2% in the RT group and 68.8% in the rTF group. We conclude that the two thromboplastins had a similar effect on the end points of the study in spite of the relatively high ISI of the RT.