You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 164 No. 6, March 22, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (4)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Thrombolysis
 •Venous Thromboembolism
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Arrhythmias
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Establishing an Optimal Therapeutic Range for Coumarins

Filling in the Gaps

Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:588-590.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Coumarins have been the mainstay of oral anticoagulant therapy for more than 50 years.1 Their effectiveness has been established by well-designed clinical trials for primary and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism, for prevention of systemic embolism in patients with prosthetic heart valves or atrial fibrillation, for primary prevention of acute myocardial infarction in high-risk men, and for prevention of stroke, recurrent infarction, or death in patients with acute myocardial infarction.1 The effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants are less clear in patients with cerebrovascular disease. In these patients, high-intensity oral anticoagulation (international normalized ratio [INR], 3.0-4.5) is associated with an unacceptable risk of intracranial bleeding,2 and low-intensity oral anticoagulation (INR, 1.4-2.8) is not more effective and is less convenient than aspirin therapy (325 mg/d).3

Oral anticoagulants have a narrow therapeutic window, and their dosage and anticoagulant effect need to be monitored carefully to maintain the INR within an appropriate range.1 . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Martin O'Donnell, MB, MRCPI
Hamilton, Ontario

Jack Hirsh, CM, MD, FRCPC, FRACP, FRSC, DSc
Henderson Research Centre
70 Wing, 711 Concession St,
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8V 1C3



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Comparison of outcomes using 2 delivery models of anticoagulation care.
Staresinic et al.
Arch Intern Med 2006;166:997-1002.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Search for Predictors of Nontherapeutic INR Results with Warfarin Therapy
McGriff-Lee et al.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2005;39:1996-2002.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Establishing an Optimal Therapeutic Range for Coumarins
Bellelli et al.
Arch Intern Med 2004;164:2282-2282.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2004 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.