OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy, clinical correlation, ease of use, and patient acceptance of the Coaguchek and the ProTime Microcoagulation System as compared with standard laboratory methods for prothrombin time determination. METHODS: A total of 30 prothrombin times, expressed as international normalized ratios (INRs), were determined by each handheld device for comparison with standard laboratory testing. Accuracy was evaluated by calculating the absolute difference for each pair of INR values. Clinical correlation was defined as an INR obtained by the handheld monitor that would have resulted in the same therapeutic decision as the INR obtained by the standard laboratory method. Subjects were surveyed to determine which method of INR determination they preferred and their reasons for that preference. RESULTS: Accuracy was superior with the Coaguchek monitor. The absolute difference (mean +/- SD) in the laboratory and Coaguchek INRs was 0.28+/-0.23 (p = 0.96). The absolute difference (mean +/- SD) in the laboratory and the ProTime Microcoagulation System INRs was 0.56+/-0.34 (p < 0.001). For clinical correlation, two out of 24 (8.3%) INRs with the Coaguchek were sufficiently different from the laboratory INR to have resulted in a different therapeutic decision, compared with 12 out of 24 (50%) with the ProTime Microcoagulation System (p < 0.005). Of subjects surveyed, 77.8% preferred the finger stick method. CONCLUSIONS: The Coaguchek was superior to the ProTime Microcoagulation System in accuracy, clinical correlation, and ease of use. The study also showed that patients preferred capillary blood sampling by finger puncture over venipuncture for INR monitoring.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy, clinical correlation, ease of use, and patient acceptance of the Coaguchek and the ProTime Microcoagulation System as compared with standard laboratory methods for prothrombin time determination. METHODS: A total of 30 prothrombin times, expressed as international normalized ratios (INRs), were determined by each handheld device for comparison with standard laboratory testing. Accuracy was evaluated by calculating the absolute difference for each pair of INR values. Clinical correlation was defined as an INR obtained by the handheld monitor that would have resulted in the same therapeutic decision as the INR obtained by the standard laboratory method. Subjects were surveyed to determine which method of INR determination they preferred and their reasons for that preference. RESULTS: Accuracy was superior with the Coaguchek monitor. The absolute difference (mean +/- SD) in the laboratory and Coaguchek INRs was 0.28+/-0.23 (p = 0.96). The absolute difference (mean +/- SD) in the laboratory and the ProTime Microcoagulation System INRs was 0.56+/-0.34 (p < 0.001). For clinical correlation, two out of 24 (8.3%) INRs with the Coaguchek were sufficiently different from the laboratory INR to have resulted in a different therapeutic decision, compared with 12 out of 24 (50%) with the ProTime Microcoagulation System (p < 0.005). Of subjects surveyed, 77.8% preferred the finger stick method. CONCLUSIONS: The Coaguchek was superior to the ProTime Microcoagulation System in accuracy, clinical correlation, and ease of use. The study also showed that patients preferred capillary blood sampling by finger puncture over venipuncture for INR monitoring.