Target INR Range for Atrial Fibrillation Patients on Warfarin
For patients with atrial fibrillation on warfarin (Coumadin), the target INR should be 2.0-3.0, with attention to maintaining a Time in Therapeutic Range (TTR) of ≥70%. 1, 2, 3
Evidence-Based Recommendations
Standard Target Range
- The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and FDA drug labeling strongly recommend a target INR range of 2.0-3.0 for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation 1, 2, 3
- This range provides the optimal balance between preventing thromboembolism and minimizing bleeding risk
- The optimal target within this range is approximately 2.5 2
Risk Considerations
INR values below 2.0 significantly increase thromboembolism risk:
INR values above 3.0 increase bleeding risk:
Importance of Time in Therapeutic Range (TTR)
TTR should be maintained at ≥65-70% to maximize efficacy and safety 1, 2
Patients with consistently low TTR (<65%) require intervention:
INR variability (as measured by standard deviation) is actually more predictive of adverse outcomes than TTR alone 7
Special Considerations
Valvular vs. Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation
- For non-valvular AF: Target INR 2.0-3.0 1, 3
- For AF with mitral stenosis: Same target INR 2.0-3.0 3
- For AF with mechanical heart valves: Target INR may be higher (2.5-3.5) depending on valve type and position 2, 3
Older Patients
- Current guidelines no longer support lower INR targets based on age alone 2
- The standard target range of 2.0-3.0 is recommended for all age groups, including those >75 years 2
- For patients at high risk of bleeding, consider NOACs rather than lowering the INR target 1, 2
Monitoring Recommendations
- Monitor INR at least weekly during initiation of therapy 2
- Once stable, monitor at least monthly 2
- Use the SAMe-TT2R2 score to identify patients likely to achieve good TTR on warfarin 1
- Score 0-2: Likely to achieve good TTR
- Score >2: Consider more frequent monitoring or switching to a NOAC
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
- Using lower INR targets (1.5-2.0) in an attempt to reduce bleeding risk - this increases stroke risk without significantly reducing bleeding 5, 6
- Focusing only on individual INR values rather than TTR 2, 7
- Inadequate monitoring frequency 2
- Overlooking medication interactions that affect INR stability 2
- Failing to consider switching to a NOAC when TTR is consistently suboptimal 1, 2