INR Goal for Atrial Fibrillation
For patients with atrial fibrillation requiring warfarin therapy, target an INR of 2.5 with a therapeutic range of 2.0-3.0, regardless of age, AF pattern (paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent), or most stroke risk factors. 1, 2, 3
Standard Target Range
- The optimal INR target is 2.5 (range 2.0-3.0) for nearly all patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. 1, 2, 3
- This range provides maximum protection against ischemic stroke while minimizing hemorrhagic complications. 4, 1
- Lower INR ranges (1.6-2.5 or 1.5-2.0) provide only approximately 80% of the stroke protection achieved with standard-intensity anticoagulation and should be avoided. 4, 1
- The risk of thromboembolism increases dramatically below INR 2.0, with stroke risk doubling at INR 1.7 and increasing six-fold at INR 1.3. 5
Age Considerations
Age alone should NOT dictate a lower INR target—the standard 2.0-3.0 range applies to all age groups, including patients ≥75 years old. 1, 3
- While older guidelines suggested considering INR 1.6-2.5 for patients over 75 at high bleeding risk, current evidence does not support this practice. 4
- Elderly patients (≥60 years) exhibit greater PT/INR response to warfarin and typically require lower doses to achieve therapeutic levels, but the target range remains 2.0-3.0. 6
- Research confirms that the optimal INR range of 2.0-3.0 does not differ by age or CHADS₂ risk score. 7
Special Populations Requiring Higher Targets
Patients with the following conditions require higher INR targets of 2.5-3.5 or greater: 4, 1
- Mechanical heart valves (especially mitral position: target INR 3.0, range 2.5-3.5) 3
- Rheumatic mitral stenosis 4, 1
- Prior thromboembolism 4
- Persistent atrial thrombus on transesophageal echocardiography 4
Critical Evidence on Lower INR Targets
Do not use lower INR targets (1.5-2.0 or 1.6-2.6) as they dramatically increase stroke risk without reducing bleeding complications. 1, 8
- A meta-analysis of 79 randomized trials (n=12,928) demonstrated that lower INR targets increased thromboembolism by 50% (7.1% vs 4.4%, RR 1.50) while only modestly reducing major bleeding. 8
- The stroke risk increases steeply below INR 2.0, with adjusted odds ratios of 2.0 at INR 1.7,3.3 at INR 1.5, and 6.0 at INR 1.3 compared to INR 2.0. 5
- While lower INR targets (1.5-2.0) are frequently used in East Asia, Western guidelines explicitly state there is no robust evidence supporting this practice globally. 3, 8
Bleeding Risk Considerations
- The risk of intracranial hemorrhage increases markedly at INR >3.5 (odds ratio 3.56 at INR 3.6-4.5). 7
- INR values between 2.0-3.0 are NOT associated with increased intracranial hemorrhage compared to lower values. 7
- Major bleeding in clinical trials occurs at approximately 1.2% per year with INR 2.0-3.0. 4
Monitoring Requirements
Check INR at least weekly during warfarin initiation until stable therapeutic levels are achieved, then at least monthly once stable. 1, 3
- Time in therapeutic range (TTR) should be ≥65-70%, with optimal control at ≥70%. 2, 3
- If TTR is consistently below 65-70%, consider switching to a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) rather than accepting subtherapeutic INR targets. 1
When to Consider DOACs Instead
DOACs are preferred over warfarin for most patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation due to superior safety profiles and elimination of INR monitoring. 1
- Switching to a DOAC is recommended for patients who fail to maintain adequate TTR (<70%) on warfarin. 1