The Effects of Pantoprazole on Kidney Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have found an association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and worsening kidney function. It is unclear whether these associations are causal.We conducted post-hoc analyses to determine the effect of pantoprazole on kidney function using data from the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial, a 17,598 participant randomized trial comparing pantoprazole (8,791) to placebo (8,807). METHODS: The primary outcome was the rate of change of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Rate of eGFR change was based on the two eGFR measures available, the eGFR at randomization and at the open label extension study that enrolled at trial conclusion. Secondary outcomes included incident chronic kidney disease (CKD) (defined by eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 at open label extension or case report forms) as well as acute kidney injury (AKI), acute nephritis, and nephrotic syndrome. RESULTS: 8,991 of the 17,598 participants randomized to pantoprazole/placebo (51%) had eGFR recorded at baseline and open label extension enrollment and were included in the rate of eGFR change population (mean age 67 [SD 8] years, 22% female, mean baseline eGFR 75 [SD 17.5] ml/min/1.73 m2). The mean duration between randomization and open label extension eGFR was 3.3 years. The placebo rate of eGFR change was -1.41 (SD 4.45) ml/min/1.73 m2 per year. The pantoprazole rate of eGFR change was -1.64 (SD 4.47) ml/min/1.73 m2 per year. In adjusted analyses pantoprazole had a 0.27 ml/min/1.73 m2 per year greater decline in eGFR (95% CI 0.11 to 0.43). The odds ratio for the effect of pantoprazole on incident CKD was 1.11 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.25) and on AKI was 0.89 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.21). There were 5 nephrotic syndrome outcomes recorded and 1 event of acute nephritis. CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis of the COMPASS trial pantoprazole resulted in a statistically significant greater rate of eGFR decline as compared to placebo. The clinical importance of this is uncertain.

Net clinical benefit of extended dual pathway inhibition according to Baseline risk in patients with chronic coronary syndrome: a COMPASS substudy.

AIMS: Guidelines recommend extended dual pathway inhibition (DPI) with aspirin and rivaroxaban in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) at high ischemic risk. The CHADS-P2A2RC score improves risk prediction and enables antithrombotic treatment allocation in these patients. This study evaluated the net clinical benefit of DPI treatment according to baseline risk as classified by the CHADS-P2A2RC score in patients with CCS included in the COMPASS trial. METHODS: COMPASS patients with CCS (n = 14 670), randomized to aspirin alone or DPI, were stratified according to cardiovascular risk using the CHADS-P2A2RC score. Endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause death, fatal/critical organ bleeding, and composite adverse events (MACE and bleeding). Net clinical benefit was the 30-month risk difference of MACE and bleeding. RESULTS: 30-month incidences of MACE (7.9% vs 3.9%, HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.83-2.18) and fatal/critical organ bleeding (1.2% vs 0.8%, HR 1.49 [1.06-1.92]) were higher in high-risk (CHADS-P2A2RC ≥ 4) than low/moderate-risk (CHADS-P2A2RC < 4) patients. DPI reduced MACE (low/moderate-risk: HR 0.62 [0.47-0.82]; high-risk: HR 0.82 [0.68-0.99], p for interaction 0.09) and all-cause death (low/moderate-risk: HR 0.65 [0.46-0.91]; high-risk: HR 0.81 [0.65-1.00], p for interaction 0.29), without substantially increasing fatal/critical organ bleeding (low/moderate-risk: HR 1.35 [0.72-2.53]; high-risk: HR 1.18 [0.73-1.90], p for interaction 0.73). DPI provided net clinical benefit of similar magnitude in low/moderate-risk (-1.81% [-3.00 to -0.62]) and high-risk CCS patients (-1.96% [-3.60 to -0.33]). CONCLUSIONS: As classified by the CHADS-P2A2RC score, low/moderate- and high-risk patients with CCS derived similar net clinical benefit and reduction in all-cause death from DPI treatment.

A Phase II randomized controlled trial evaluated antithrombotic treatment with fesomersen in patients with kidney failure on hemodialysis.

Patients with kidney failure on hemodialysis (KF-HD) are at high risk for both atherothrombotic events and bleeding. This Phase IIb study evaluated the dose-response of fesomersen, an inhibitor of hepatic Factor XI expression, versus placebo, for bleeding and atherothrombosis in patients with KF-HD. Patients were randomized to receive fesomersen 40, 80, or 120 mg once-monthly, or matching placebo, for up to 12 months. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (MB/CRNMB). Exploratory endpoints included post-dialysis arterio-venous (AV)-access bleeding, major atherothrombotic events (composite of fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia/major amputation, systemic embolism, symptomatic venous thromboembolism), AV-access thrombosis, and clotting of the hemodialysis circuit. Of 308 participants randomized, 307 received study treatment and were analyzed. Fesomersen led to a dose-dependent and sustained reduction of steady-state median FXI levels by 53.6% (40 mg group), 71.3% (80 mg group), 86.0% (120 mg group), and 1.9% in the placebo group. MB/CRNMB events occurred in 6.5% (40 mg group), 5.1% (80 mg group), 3.9% (120 mg group), and in 4.0% of those receiving placebo (pooled fesomersen versus placebo P = 0.78). Major atherothrombotic events occurred in 1 patient (1.3%) in each treatment arm. MB/CRNMB bleeding and post-dialysis AV-access bleeding were not related to predicted FXI levels. Lower predicted FXI levels were associated with reductions in hemodialysis circuit clotting (P = 0.002) and AV-access thrombosis (P = 0.014). In patients with KF-HD, fesomersen produced a dose-dependent reduction in FXI levels associated with similar rates of major bleeding compared with placebo. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; unique identifier: NCT04534114.

Cost-effectiveness of low-dose colchicine in patients with chronic coronary disease in the netherlands.

AIMS: Recent trials have shown that low-dose colchicine (0.5 mg once daily) reduces major cardiovascular events in patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of low-dose colchicine therapy in patients with chronic coronary disease when added to standard background therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: This Markov cohort cost-effectiveness model used estimates of therapy effectiveness, transition probabilities, costs and quality of life obtained from the Low-dose Colchicine 2 (LoDoCo2) trial, as well as meta-analyses and public sources. In this trial, Low-dose colchicine was added to standard of care and compared to placebo. The main outcomes were cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction, stroke and coronary revascularisation, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), the cost per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), and net monetary benefit. In the model, low-dose colchicine therapy yielded 0.04 additional QALYs compared with standard of care at an incremental cost of €455 from a societal perspective and €729 from a healthcare perspective, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of €12,176/QALY from a societal perspective and €19,499/QALY from a healthcare perspective. Net monetary benefit was €1,414 from a societal perspective and €1,140 from a healthcare perspective. Low-dose colchicine has a 96% and 94% chance of being cost effective, from respectively a societal and healthcare perspective when using a willingness to pay of €50,000/QALY. Net monetary benefit would decrease below zero when annual low-dose colchicine costs would exceed an annual cost of €221 per patient. CONCLUSION: Adding low-dose colchicine to standard of care in patients with chronic coronary disease is cost-effective according to commonly accepted thresholds in Europe and Australia and compares favourably in cost-effectiveness to other drugs used in chronic coronary disease.

Bleeding Risk Prediction in Patients Treated with Antithrombotic Drugs According to the Anatomic Site of Bleeding, Indication for Treatment, and Time Since Treatment Initiation.

Background Reasons for the relatively poor performance of bleeding prediction models are not well understood but may relate to differences in predictors for various anatomical sites of bleeding. Methods We pooled individual participant data from four randomized controlled trials of antithrombotic therapy in patients with coronary and peripheral artery diseases, embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS), or atrial fibrillation. We examined discrimination and calibration of models for any major bleeding, major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), according to the time since initiation of antithrombotic therapy, and indication for antithrombotic therapy. Results Of 57,813 patients included, 1,948 (3.37%) experienced major bleeding, including 717 (1.24%) major GI bleeding and 274 (0.47%) ICH. The model derived to predict major bleeding at 1 year from any site (c-index, 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.71) performed similarly when applied to predict major GI bleeding (0.71, 0.69-0.74), but less well to predict ICH (0.64, 0.61-0.69). Models derived to predict GI bleeding (0.75, 0.74-0.78) and ICH (0.72, 0.70-0.79) performed better than the general major bleeding model. Discrimination declined over time since the initiation of antithrombotic treatment, stabilizing at approximately 2 years for any major bleeding and major GI bleeding and 1 year for ICH. Discrimination was best for the model predicting ICH in the ESUS population (0.82, 0.78-0.92) and worst for the model predicting any major bleeding in the coronary and peripheral artery disease population (0.66, 0.65-0.69). Conclusion Performance of risk prediction models for major bleeding is affected by site of bleeding, time since initiation of antithrombotic therapy, and indication for antithrombotic therapy.

Optimizing antithrombotic therapy in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal disease.

Balancing the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic agents in patients with gastrointestinal disorders is challenging because of the potential for interference with the absorption of antithrombotic drugs and for an increased risk of bleeding. In this Review, we address considerations for enteral antithrombotic therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease and gastrointestinal comorbidities. For those with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), we summarize a general scheme for risk stratification and clinical evidence on risk reduction approaches, such as limiting the use of concomitant medications that increase the risk of GIB and the potential utility of gastrointestinal protection strategies (such as proton pump inhibitors or histamine type 2 receptor antagonists). Furthermore, we summarize the best available evidence and potential gaps in our knowledge on tailoring antithrombotic therapy in patients with active or recent GIB and in those at high risk of GIB but without active or recent GIB. Finally, we review the recommendations provided by major medical societies, highlighting the crucial role of teamwork and multidisciplinary discussions to customize the antithrombotic regimen in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases.

Optimizing warfarin dosing for patients with atrial fibrillation using machine learning.

While novel oral anticoagulants are increasingly used to reduce risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin continue to be used extensively for stroke prevention across the world. While effective in reducing the risk of strokes, the complex pharmacodynamics of warfarin make it difficult to use clinically, with many patients experiencing under- and/or over- anticoagulation. In this study we employed a novel implementation of deep reinforcement learning to provide clinical decision support to optimize time in therapeutic International Normalized Ratio (INR) range. We used a novel semi-Markov decision process formulation of the Batch-Constrained deep Q-learning algorithm to develop a reinforcement learning model to dynamically recommend optimal warfarin dosing to achieve INR of 2.0-3.0 for patients with atrial fibrillation. The model was developed using data from 22,502 patients in the warfarin treated groups of the pivotal randomized clinical trials of edoxaban (ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48), apixaban (ARISTOTLE) and rivaroxaban (ROCKET AF). The model was externally validated on data from 5730 warfarin-treated patients in a fourth trial of dabigatran (RE-LY) using multilevel regression models to estimate the relationship between center-level algorithm consistent dosing, time in therapeutic INR range (TTR), and a composite clinical outcome of stroke, systemic embolism or major hemorrhage. External validation showed a positive association between center-level algorithm-consistent dosing and TTR (R2 = 0.56). Each 10% increase in algorithm-consistent dosing at the center level independently predicted a 6.78% improvement in TTR (95% CI 6.29, 7.28; p < 0.001) and a 11% decrease in the composite clinical outcome (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.81, 1.00; p = 0.015). These results were comparable to those of a rules-based clinical algorithm used for benchmarking, for which each 10% increase in algorithm-consistent dosing independently predicted a 6.10% increase in TTR (95% CI 5.67, 6.54, p < 0.001) and a 10% decrease in the composite outcome (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83, 0.98, p = 0.018). Our findings suggest that a deep reinforcement learning algorithm can optimize time in therapeutic range for patients taking warfarin. A digital clinical decision support system to promote algorithm-consistent warfarin dosing could optimize time in therapeutic range and improve clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation globally.

Bleeding Outcomes in Patients Treated With Asundexian in Phase II Trials.

BACKGROUND: Phase II trials of asundexian were underpowered to detect important differences in bleeding. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to obtain best estimates of effects of asundexian vs active control/placebo on major and clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) and all bleeding, describe most common sites of bleeding, and explore association between asundexian exposure and bleeding. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of 3 phase II trials of asundexian in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), recent acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or stroke. Bleeding was defined according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) criteria. RESULTS: In patients with AF (n = 755), both asundexian 20 mg and 50 mg once daily vs apixaban had fewer major/CRNM events (3 of 249; incidence rate [IR] per 100 patient-years 5.47 vs 1 of 254 [IR: not calculable] vs 6 of 250 [IR: 11.10]) and all bleeding (12 of 249 [IR: 22.26] vs 10 of 254 [IR: 18.21] vs 26 of 250 [IR: 50.56]). In patients with recent AMI or stroke (n = 3,409), asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, and 50 mg once daily compared with placebo had similar rates of major/CRNM events (44 of 840 [IR: 7.55] vs 42 of 843 [IR: 7.04] vs 56 of 845 [IR: 9.63] vs 41 of 851 [IR: 6.99]) and all bleeding (107 of 840 [IR: 19.57] vs 123 of 843 [IR: 22.45] vs 130 of 845 [IR: 24.19] vs 129 of 851 [IR: 23.84]). Most common sites of major/CRNM bleeding with asundexian were gastrointestinal, respiratory, urogenital, and skin. There was no significant association between asundexian exposure and major/CRNM bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of phase II trials involving >500 bleeds highlight the potential for improved safety of asundexian compared with apixaban and similar safety compared with placebo. Further evidence on the efficacy of asundexian awaits the results of ongoing phase III trials.

When Direct Oral Anticoagulants Should Not Be Standard Treatment: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

For most patients, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and for venous thromboembolism treatment. However, randomized controlled trials suggest that DOACs may not be as efficacious or as safe as the current standard of care in conditions such as mechanical heart valves, thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, and atrial fibrillation associated with rheumatic heart disease. DOACs do not provide a net benefit in conditions such as embolic stroke of undetermined source. Their efficacy is uncertain for conditions such as left ventricular thrombus, catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and for patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thrombosis who have end-stage renal disease. This paper provides an evidence-based review of randomized controlled trials on DOACs, detailing when they have demonstrated efficacy and safety, when DOACs should not be the standard of care, where their safety and efficacy are uncertain, and areas requiring further research.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Vitamin-K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Across the Spectrum of Body Mass Index and Body Weight: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) across the spectrum of body mass index (BMI) and body weight (BW) remain uncertain. METHODS: We analyzed data from COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation), which pooled patient-level data from the 4 pivotal randomized trials of NOAC versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were stroke or systemic embolic events (stroke/SEE) and major bleeding, respectively; secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke/SEE, intracranial hemorrhage, death, and the net clinical outcome (stroke/SEE, major bleeding, or death). Each outcome was examined across BMI and BW. Because few patients had a BMI <18.5 kg/m2 (n=598), the primary analyses were restricted to those with a BMI ≥18.5 kg/m2. RESULTS: Among 58 464 patients, the median BMI was 28.3 (interquartile range, 25.2-32.2) kg/m2, and the median BW was 81.0 (interquartile range, 70.0-94.3) kg. The event probability of stroke/SEE was lower at a higher BMI irrespective of treatment, whereas the probability of major bleeding was lower at a higher BMI with warfarin but relatively unchanged across BMI with NOACs. NOACs reduced stroke/SEE overall (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.88]; P<0.001), with a generally consistent effect across BMI (Ptrend across HRs, 0.48). NOACs also reduced major bleeding overall (HRadj, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82-0.94]; P<0.001), but with attenuation of the benefit at a higher BMI (trend test across BMI [Ptrend], 0.003). The overall treatment effects of NOACs versus warfarin for secondary outcomes were consistent across BMI, with the exception of the net clinical outcome and death. While these outcomes were overall reduced with NOACs (net clinical outcome, HRadj, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87-0.95]; P<0.001; death, HRadj, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]; P=0.003), these benefits were attenuated at higher BMI (Ptrend, 0.001 and 0.08, respectively). All findings were qualitatively similar when analyzed across BW. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment effect of NOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation is generally consistent for stroke/SEE across the spectrum of BMI and BW, whereas the reduction in major bleeding is attenuated in those with higher BMI or BW. Death and the net clinical outcome are overall reduced with NOACs over warfarin, although there remain uncertainties for these outcomes at a very high BMI and BW.

Single Bolus r-SAK Before Primary PCI for ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether adjunctive thrombolysis is beneficial for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 120 minutes of presentation. This study was to determine whether in patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction a single bolus recombinant staphylokinase (r-SAK) before timely PCI leads to improved patency of the infarct-related artery and reduces the infarct size. METHODS: This is an open-label, prospective, multicenter, randomized study. We enrolled patients aged 18 to 75 years who were within 12 hours of symptom onset of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and expected to undergo PCI within 120 minutes. Patients were administered loading doses of aspirin and ticagrelor and intravenous heparin and were randomized to receive 5 mg bolus of r-SAK or normal saline intravenously before PCI. The primary end point was Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade 2 to 3 or grade 3 in the infarct-related artery 60 minutes after thrombolysis. The infarct size was detected by cardiac magnetic resonance 5 days after randomization. The safety end point was major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥3) during 30-day follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 283 patients were screened from 8 centers and 200 were randomized (median age, 58.5 years; 14% female). The median symptom to thrombolysis time was 252.5 (interquartile range, 142.8-423.8) minutes and thrombolysis to coronary arteriography was 50.0 (interquartile range, 37.0-66.0) minutes. Patients randomized to r-SAK compared with normal saline more often had Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade 2 to 3 (69.0% versus 29.0%; P<0.001) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade 3 (51.0% versus 18.0%; P<0.001) and had smaller infarct size (21.91±10.84% versus 26.85±12.37%; P=0.016). There was no increase in major bleeding (r-SAK, 1.0% versus control, 3.0%; P=0.616). CONCLUSIONS: A single bolus r-SAK before primary PCI for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction improves infarct-related artery patency and reduces infarct size without increasing major bleeding. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05023681.

Factor XI Inhibitors: Potential Role in End-Stage Kidney Disease.

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) experience a high thrombotic risk but are also at increased risk of bleeding. There is an unmet need for safer antithrombotic therapy in patients with ESKD on hemodialysis. Factor XI (FXI) represents an attractive therapeutic target for anticoagulation because of the potential to mitigate the bleeding risks associated with currently approved anticoagulants, especially in patients at high risk of bleeding. FXI inhibition is also an attractive option in settings where coagulation is activated by exposure of the blood to artificial surfaces, including the extracorporeal circuit during hemodialysis. Therapies targeting FXI that are in the most advanced stages of clinical development include antisense oligonucleotides, monoclonal antibodies, and synthetic small molecules, which serve either to lower FXI levels or block its physiological effects. This review article presents the most recent pharmacological data with FXI inhibitors, briefly describes phase 2 and 3 clinical trials with these agents, and critically examines the potential future use of FXI inhibitors for extracorporeal circuit anticoagulation in patients with ESKD. In addition, laboratory monitoring and reversal of FXI inhibitors are briefly discussed.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Compared with Aspirin Alone in the COMPASS Trial: A US Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg daily was shown to be better than aspirin 100 mg daily for preventing cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke or myocardial infarction in patients with either stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). The cost-effectiveness of this regimen in this population is essential for decision-makers to know. METHODS: US direct healthcare system costs (in USD) were applied to hospitalized events, procedures and study drugs utilized by all patients. We determined the mean cost per participant for the full duration of the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months) plus quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime using a two-state Markov model with 1-year cycle length. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the price of rivaroxaban and the annual discontinuation rate. RESULTS: The costs of events and procedures were reduced for Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) patients who received rivaroxaban 2.5 mg orally (BID) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with ASA alone. Total costs were higher for the combination group ($7426 versus $4173) after considering acquisition costs of the study drug. Over a lifetime, patients receiving rivaroxaban plus ASA incurred $27,255 more and gained 1.17 QALYs compared with those receiving ASA alone resulting in an ICER of $23,295/QALY. ICERs for PAD only and polyvascular disease subgroups were lower. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID plus ASA compared with ASA alone was cost-effective (high value) in the USA. COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424.

Outcomes of Patients with a Mechanical Heart Valve and Poor Anticoagulation Control on Warfarin.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a mechanical heart valve (MHV) require oral anticoagulation. Poor anticoagulation control is thought to be associated with adverse outcomes, but data are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risks of clinical outcomes in patients with a MHV and poor anticoagulation control on warfarin. PATIENTS/METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing MHV implantation at a tertiary care center (2010-2019). Primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or prosthetic valve thrombosis. Major bleeding and death were key secondary outcomes. We constructed multivariable regression models to assess the association between time in therapeutic range (TTR) on warfarin beyond 90 days after surgery with outcomes. RESULTS: We included 671 patients with a MHV (80.6% in aortic, 14.6% in mitral position; mean age 61 years, 30.3% female). Median follow-up was 4.9 years, mean TTR was 62.5% (14.5% TTR <40%, 24.6% TTR 40-60%, and 61.0% TTR >60%). Overall rates of the primary outcome, major bleeding, and death were 0.73, 1.41, and 1.44 per 100 patient-years. Corresponding rates for patients with TTR <40% were 1.31, 2.77, and 3.22 per 100 patient-years. In adjusted analyses, every 10% decrement in TTR was associated with a 31% increase in hazard for the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-1.52), 34% increase in major bleeding (HR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.17-1.52), and 32% increase in death (HR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.11-1.57). CONCLUSION: In contemporary patients with a MHV, poor anticoagulation control on warfarin was associated with increased risks of thrombotic events, bleeding, and death.