Literature DB >> 15789176

Analytical performance of the new coagulation monitoring system INRatio for the determination of INR compared with the coagulation monitor Coaguchek S and an established laboratory method.

Uwe Taborski1, Siegmund L Braun, Heinz Völler.   

Abstract

An evaluation of the INRatio Prothrombin Time Monitoring system for determination of INR was done in two centers with a total of 5 healthy subjects and 77 subjects on oral anticoagulation. The INRatio and the Coaguchek S were compared with an established laboratory method. The correlation coefficient of the comparison with the laboratory was r=0.954 for INRatio and r=0.937 for Coaguchek S. The mean relative deviation from the lab method calculated according to Hill was 6.87% for INRatio, which is rated "very goo", and 9.72% for Coaguchek S ("goo"). The imprecision in the normal range (INR=1.1) showed a coefficient of variation (CV) of 7.8% and a standard deviation (SD) of 0.09. In the therapeutic range (INR 3.9) the CV was 5.4%, the SD 0.21 and above therapeutic range (INR 5.3), the CV was 8.4% (SD 0.44), rated satisfactory. The concordances of the compared methods with the routine were 81% for INRatio and 79% for Coaguchek S, which is considered state-of-the-art. Most of the patients' perceptions of the INRatio were very positive. In the hands of professionals the INRatio demonstrated very good accuracy and precision and an excellent technical reliability. Further studies using INRatio for self testing by patients are warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15789176     DOI: 10.1007/s11239-004-0206-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis        ISSN: 0929-5305            Impact factor:   2.300


  4 in total

1.  A randomized trial comparing INR monitoring devices in patients with anticoagulation self-management: evaluation of a novel error-grid approach.

Authors:  Lars G Hemkens; Kristian M Hilden; Stephan Hartschen; Thomas Kaiser; Ulrike Didjurgeit; Roland Hansen; Ralf Bender; Peter T Sawicki
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2007-10-26       Impact factor: 2.300

2.  Alternative calculations of individual patient time in therapeutic range while taking warfarin: results from the ROCKET AF trial.

Authors:  Daniel E Singer; Anne S Hellkamp; Zhong Yuan; Yuliya Lokhnygina; Manesh R Patel; Jonathan P Piccini; Graeme J Hankey; Günter Breithardt; Jonathan L Halperin; Richard C Becker; Werner Hacke; Christopher C Nessel; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Keith A A Fox; Robert M Califf
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 5.501

3.  Performance of point-of-care international normalized ratio measurement to diagnose trauma-induced coagulopathy.

Authors:  Thomas Mistral; Yvonnick Boué; Jean-Luc Bosson; Pauline Manhes; Jules Greze; Julien Brun; Pierre Albaladejo; Jean-François Payen; Pierre Bouzat
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 2.953

4.  Does point of care prothrombin time measurement reduce the transfusion of fresh frozen plasma in patients undergoing major surgery? The POC-OP randomized-controlled trial.

Authors:  Natalie Urwyler; Sven Trelle; Lorenz Theiler; Peter Jüni; Lukas P Staub; Cedric Luyet; Lorenzo Alberio; Kay Stricker; Robert Greif
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-11-23       Impact factor: 2.279

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.