OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of 2 commercially available point-of-care devices relative to plasma international normalized ratio (INR) values. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Point-of-care INR testing was performed with the CoaguChek and ProTime 3 devices in consecutive patients attending an anticoagulation clinic between June 18, 2003, and August 6, 2003. Results were compared with plasma INRs using a sensitive thromboplastin (International Sensitivity Index, 1.0). RESULTS: Ninety-four patients agreed to participate in the study. Relative to the plasma INR, values were in agreement +/-0.4 INR unit 82% and 39% of the time for the CoaguChek and ProTime 3 devices, respectively. The mean +/- SD CoaguChek INRs were 0.2+/-0.31 unit lower, whereas ProTime 3 INRs were 0.8+/-0.68 unit higher than plasma INR values. Treatment decisions based on these data would have resulted in inappropriate dose adjustments 10% and 22% of the time for these 2 respective devices. Correlation with plasma was greater for the CoaguChek (r2=0.90) compared with the ProTime 3 device (r2=0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal warfarin treatment requires accurate measurement of the INR. The choice of a point-of-care device for INR management depends on the reliability of INR data generated by the device.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of 2 commercially available point-of-care devices relative to plasma international normalized ratio (INR) values. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Point-of-care INR testing was performed with the CoaguChek and ProTime 3 devices in consecutive patients attending an anticoagulation clinic between June 18, 2003, and August 6, 2003. Results were compared with plasma INRs using a sensitive thromboplastin (International Sensitivity Index, 1.0). RESULTS: Ninety-four patients agreed to participate in the study. Relative to the plasma INR, values were in agreement +/-0.4 INR unit 82% and 39% of the time for the CoaguChek and ProTime 3 devices, respectively. The mean +/- SD CoaguChek INRs were 0.2+/-0.31 unit lower, whereas ProTime 3 INRs were 0.8+/-0.68 unit higher than plasma INR values. Treatment decisions based on these data would have resulted in inappropriate dose adjustments 10% and 22% of the time for these 2 respective devices. Correlation with plasma was greater for the CoaguChek (r2=0.90) compared with the ProTime 3 device (r2=0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal warfarin treatment requires accurate measurement of the INR. The choice of a point-of-care device for INR management depends on the reliability of INR data generated by the device.
Authors: Devendra Saksena; Yugal K Mishra; S Muralidharan; Vivek Kanhere; Pankaj Srivastava; C P Srivastava Journal: Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2019-01-28
Authors: Martin van Zyl; Waldemar E Wysokinski; Thomas M Jaeger; Ana I Casanegra; Bernard J Gersh; Robert D McBane Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-08-15
Authors: Robert W Hoel; Robert C Albright; Lisa K Beyer; Paula J Santrach; Donna L Magtibay; Stephanie L Everson; Robert D McBane Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2008-11-05 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Mina Hur; Hanah Kim; Chul Min Park; Antonio La Gioia; Sang-Gyu Choi; Ju-Hee Choi; Hee-Won Moon; Yeo-Min Yun Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2012-12-24 Impact factor: 3.411