Relationship Between Prothrombin Activation Fragment F1.2 and International Normalized Ratio in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Abstract

Increasing intensity of anticoagulation, as measured by the INR, is associated with decreasing thrombin generation as measured by the F1.2 level, but significant variability exists in this relationship. Older anticoagulated patients have higher F1.2 values than younger patients at equivalent INR values. The clinical significance of these differences is not clear. F1.2 measurement might provide information regarding anticoagulation intensity in addition to that reflected by the INR.

Effects of Anticoagulation Intensity on Hemostatic Markers in Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation

“…F1.2 is an index of in vivo thrombin generation and is suppressed with anticoagulation in a dose-dependent manner (Fig 1). In a previous study, 9 patients receiving warfarin whose INR was <1.2 did not 7 The present results seem to be favorable because the incidence of adverse effect by warfarin (ie, bleeding complications) increases with elevation of INR. 8 The concentrations of F1.2 were increased with age although this relation between F1.2 and age was not as tight as for the D-dimer -age relation.…”

ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

“…It has been estimated that 2.2 million people in America and 4.5 million in the European Union have paroxysmal or persistent AF. 12 During the past 20 y, there has been a 66% increase in hospital admissions for AF [13][14][15] due to a combination of factors including the aging of the population, a rising prevalence of chronic heart disease, and more frequent diagnosis through use of ambulatory monitoring devices. AF is an extremely costly public health problem, 16,17 with hospitaliza- Figure 3.…”

Extracranial Systemic Embolic Events in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

“…1 Although the incidence and risk factors for ischemic stroke in patients with AF have been well studied, relatively little is known about the distribution, clinical features, and outcomes of extracranial systemic embolic events (SEEs) in this population. [2][3][4][5][6] This is likely due, in part, to the difficulty in detecting SEE in comparison with ischemic stroke. Two previous reports 7,8 have described the distribution and potential clinical significance of SEE.…”