Literature DB >> 10690176

A primary care evaluation of three near patient coagulometers.

E T Murray1, D A Fitzmaurice, T F Allan, F D Hobbs.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare the reliability and relative costs of three international normalised ratio (INR) near patient tests. MATERIALS: Protime (ITC Technidyne), Coaguchek (Boehringer Mannheim), and TAS (Diagnostic Testing).
METHODS: All patients attending one inner city general practice anticoagulation clinic were asked to participate, with two samples provided by patients not taking warfarin. A 5 ml sample of venous whole blood was taken from each patient and a drop immediately added to the prepared Coaguchek test strip followed by the Protime cuvette. The remainder was added to a citrated bottle. A drop of citrated blood was then placed on the TAS test card and the remainder sent to the reference laboratory for analysis. Parallel INR estimation was performed on the different near patient tests at each weekly anticoagulation clinic from July to December 1997.
RESULTS: 19 patients receiving long term warfarin treatment provided 62 INR results. INR results ranged from 0.8-8.2 overall and 1.0-5.7 based on the laboratory method. Taking the laboratory method as the gold standard, 12/62 results were < 2.0 and 2/62 were > 4.5. There were no statistical or clinically significant differences between results from the three systems, although all near patient tests showed slightly higher mean readings than the laboratory, and 19-24% of tests would have resulted in different management decisions based on the machine used in comparison with the laboratory INR value. The cost of the near patient test systems varied substantially.
CONCLUSIONS: All three near patient test systems are safe and efficient for producing acceptable and reproducible INR results within the therapeutic range in a primary care setting. All the systems were, however, subject to operator dependent variables at the time of blood letting. Adequate training in capillary blood sampling, specific use of the machines, and quality assurance procedures is therefore essential.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10690176      PMCID: PMC501598          DOI: 10.1136/jcp.52.11.842

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  8 in total

1.  Discrepant INR values strike again.

Authors:  M Morrison; E J Fitzsimons
Journal:  Clin Lab Haematol       Date:  1991

2.  Accuracy of laboratory and portable monitor international normalized ratio determinations. Comparison with a criterion standard.

Authors:  S S Kaatz; R H White; J Hill; E Mascha; J E Humphries; D M Becker
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1995-09-25

3.  Audit of anticoagulant therapy.

Authors:  P E Rose
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Calibration verification of the International Normalized Ratio.

Authors:  G C Critchfield; S T Bennett; W R Swaim
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 2.493

5.  Evaluation of the new method Coaguchek for the determination of prothrombin time from capillary blood: comparison with Thrombotest on KC-1.

Authors:  S Kapiotis; P Quehenberger; W Speiser
Journal:  Thromb Res       Date:  1995-03-15       Impact factor: 3.944

6.  Quality control and oral anticoagulation.

Authors:  F E Preston
Journal:  Thromb Haemost       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 5.249

7.  Is the international normalised ratio (INR) reliable? A trial of comparative measurements in hospital laboratory and primary care settings.

Authors:  F D Hobbs; D A Fitzmaurice; E T Murray; R Holder; P E Rose; J L Roper
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Effect of laboratory variation in the prothrombin-time ratio on the results of oral anticoagulant therapy.

Authors:  M H Eckman; H J Levine; S G Pauker
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-09-02       Impact factor: 91.245

  8 in total
  7 in total

1.  INRs and point of care testing.

Authors:  E T Murray; M Greaves
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-07-05

2.  Validity of CoaguChek S for home monitoring of anticoagulant therapy in pediatrics.

Authors:  James Hill; Sébastien Perreault; Michel Dorval
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 5.223

3.  Self management of oral anticoagulation: randomised trial.

Authors:  D A Fitzmaurice; E T Murray; D McCahon; R Holder; J P Raftery; S Hussain; H Sandhar; F D R Hobbs
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-10-10

4.  Reliability, validity and ease of use of a portable point-of-care coagulation device in a pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic.

Authors:  Annie Lizotte; Isabelle Quessy; Marie-Claude Vanier; Josée Martineau; Stéphanie Caron; Martin Darveau; Alain Dubé; Edith Gilbert; Normand Blais; Lyne Lalonde
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.300

5.  Research into practice: management of atrial fibrillation in general practice.

Authors:  David A Fitzmaurice; F D Richard Hobbs
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  The cost-effectiveness of point of care testing in a general practice setting: results from a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Caroline O Laurence; John R Moss; Nancy E Briggs; Justin J Beilby
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  SMART: self-management of anticoagulation, a randomised trial [ISRCTN19313375].

Authors:  Deborah McCahon; David A Fitzmaurice; Ellen T Murray; Christopher J Fuller; Richard F D Hobbs; Teresa F Allan; James P Raftery
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2003-09-18       Impact factor: 2.497

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.