T D Christensen1, T B Larsen. 1. Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery & Institute of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N., Denmark. tdc@ki.au.dk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation therapy is monitored by the use of the International Normalized Ratio (INR). Patients who perform self-testing or self-management use a point-of-care testing (POCT) coagulometer (INR monitor) to estimate their INRs. A precondition for a correct dosage of coumarins is a correct INR estimation, and the method and apparatus used for providing the INR measurements are crucial in this context. Several studies have been published regarding the precision and accuracy of these POCT coagulometers, and have led to diverse conclusions. It is difficult and challenging to perform an overview of the literature, owing to the vast amount of papers, with differences in design, statistical analysis, etc. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the current literature, especially regarding the precision and accuracy of the POCT coagulometers, to provide recommendations for clinical use and quality control, and to point out areas for future research. METHODS: We included a total of 22 studies, of which four were characterized as high-quality studies. RESULTS: The precision of the POCT coagulometers was generally adequate for clinical use. Their performance in terms of accuracy has to be viewed in the context of the inherent inaccuracies of INR measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of POCT coagulometers seems, in this respect, to be generally acceptable, and they can be used in a clinical setting.
BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation therapy is monitored by the use of the International Normalized Ratio (INR). Patients who perform self-testing or self-management use a point-of-care testing (POCT) coagulometer (INR monitor) to estimate their INRs. A precondition for a correct dosage of coumarins is a correct INR estimation, and the method and apparatus used for providing the INR measurements are crucial in this context. Several studies have been published regarding the precision and accuracy of these POCT coagulometers, and have led to diverse conclusions. It is difficult and challenging to perform an overview of the literature, owing to the vast amount of papers, with differences in design, statistical analysis, etc. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the current literature, especially regarding the precision and accuracy of the POCT coagulometers, to provide recommendations for clinical use and quality control, and to point out areas for future research. METHODS: We included a total of 22 studies, of which four were characterized as high-quality studies. RESULTS: The precision of the POCT coagulometers was generally adequate for clinical use. Their performance in terms of accuracy has to be viewed in the context of the inherent inaccuracies of INR measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of POCT coagulometers seems, in this respect, to be generally acceptable, and they can be used in a clinical setting.
Authors: Annette Plüddemann; Matthew Thompson; Jane Wolstenholme; Christopher P Price; Carl Heneghan Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Sarah E Mena; Yunzi Li; Joseph McCormick; Brendan McCracken; Carmen Colmenero; Kevin Ward; Mark A Burns Journal: Biomicrofluidics Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 2.800
Authors: Pawana Sharma; Graham Scotland; Moira Cruickshank; Emma Tassie; Cynthia Fraser; Christopher Burton; Bernard Croal; Craig R Ramsay; Miriam Brazzelli Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jonathan Douxfils; Anne Tamigniau; Bernard Chatelain; Catherine Goffinet; Jean-Michel Dogné; François Mullier Journal: Thromb J Date: 2014-11-04
Authors: Florian J Raimann; Marie-Louise Lindner; Christoph Martin; Lukas Jennewein; Thomas Lustenberger; Florian Piekarski; Kai Zacharowski; Christian F Weber Journal: Pract Lab Med Date: 2021-05-23
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
Authors: Michael Nagler; Lucas M Bachmann; Pirmin Schmid; Pascale Raddatz Müller; Walter A Wuillemin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 3.240