Literature DB >> 20852163

Comparison of International Normalized Ratios provided by two point-of-care devices and laboratory-based venipuncture in a pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic.

Mark Donaldson1, John Sullivan, Amber Norbeck.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The International Normalized Ratios (INRs) measured by two point-of-care (POC) devices were compared with those obtained via laboratory-based venipuncture.
METHODS: In an outpatient, pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic, 52 patients receiving oral warfarin therapy had their INR values measured using two POC devices, i-STAT PT/INR (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL) and CoaguChek XS Plus (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN). At the same visit, one venous blood sample was collected from each patient for INR measurement by the reference laboratory's instrumentation (STAGO, Diagnostica-Stago, Parsippany, NJ). Accuracy was evaluated by calculating the absolute difference for each set of INR values. Clinical correlation was defined as an INR measurement obtained by the POC devices that would have resulted in the same therapeutic decision as the INR value measured by the reference laboratory's instrumentation.
RESULTS: Accuracy was superior with the CoaguChek XS Plus device. The absolute difference (mean ± S.D.) in the INR measurements obtained using STAGO versus CoaguChek XS Plus was 0.28 ± 0.31 (p < 0.0001). The absolute difference in INR values measured using STAGO and the i-STAT PT/INR device was 0.51 ± 0.44 (p < 0.0001). For clinical correlation, 17 (33%) of 52 INR measurements with the CoaguChek XS Plus were sufficiently different from the STAGO-measured INR values to have resulted in a different therapeutic decision (p < 0.001), compared with 28 (54%) of 52 with the i-STAT PT/INR (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: INR measurements generated by POC devices exhibited positive bias, compared with laboratory-based venipuncture, for INR values at the high end of the INR range.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20852163     DOI: 10.2146/ajhp100096

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Health Syst Pharm        ISSN: 1079-2082            Impact factor:   2.637


  6 in total

1.  All the bang without the bucks: Defining essential point-of-care testing for traumatic coagulopathy.

Authors:  Michael D Goodman; Amy T Makley; Dennis J Hanseman; Timothy A Pritts; Bryce R H Robinson
Journal:  J Trauma Acute Care Surg       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 3.313

2.  Patients' satisfaction associated with portable coagulometers for warfarin monitoring: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Nicoletta Riva; Christian Borg Xuereb; Walter Ageno; Michael Makris; Alex Gatt
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2020-06-04       Impact factor: 3.443

3.  Adverse events in patients initiated on dabigatran etexilate therapy in a pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic.

Authors:  Mark Donaldson; Amber Olivia Norbeck
Journal:  Pharm Pract (Granada)       Date:  2013-06-30

4.  Micro-mechanical blood clot testing using smartphones.

Authors:  Justin Chan; Kelly Michaelsen; Joanne K Estergreen; Daniel E Sabath; Shyamnath Gollakota
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-02-11       Impact factor: 14.919

5.  Comparison of international normalized ratio measurement between CoaguChek XS Plus and STA-R coagulation analyzers.

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

6.  Prospective Comparison of Point-of-Care Device and Standard Analyzer for Monitoring of International Normalized Ratio in Outpatient Oral Anticoagulant Clinic.

Authors:  Bushra Moiz; Anila Rashid; Muhammad Hasan; Lena Jafri; Ahmed Raheem
Journal:  Clin Appl Thromb Hemost       Date:  2018-01-28       Impact factor: 2.389

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.