Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of 2 commercially available point-of-care devises 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 (r 2=0.90) compared with the ProTime 3 device (r2=0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal warfarin treatment requires accurate measurement of the IMR. The choice of a point-of-care device for INR management depends on the reliability of INR data generated by the device.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 181-186 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Mayo Clinic Proceedings |
| Volume | 80 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| State | Published - 2005 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Medicine(all)
Cite this
Importance of device evaluation for point-of-care prothrombin time international normalized ratio testing programs. / McBane, Robert D.; Felty, Cindy L.; Hartgers, Mindy L.; Chaudhry, Rajeev; Beyer, Lisa K.; Santrach, Paula J.
In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Vol. 80, No. 2, 2005, p. 181-186.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Importance of device evaluation for point-of-care prothrombin time international normalized ratio testing programs
AU - McBane, Robert D.
AU - Felty, Cindy L.
AU - Hartgers, Mindy L.
AU - Chaudhry, Rajeev
AU - Beyer, Lisa K.
AU - Santrach, Paula J.
PY - 2005
Y1 - 2005
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of 2 commercially available point-of-care devises 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 (r 2=0.90) compared with the ProTime 3 device (r2=0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal warfarin treatment requires accurate measurement of the IMR. The choice of a point-of-care device for INR management depends on the reliability of INR data generated by the device.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of 2 commercially available point-of-care devises 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 (r 2=0.90) compared with the ProTime 3 device (r2=0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal warfarin treatment requires accurate measurement of the IMR. The choice of a point-of-care device for INR management depends on the reliability of INR data generated by the device.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=13244277897&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=13244277897&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
VL - 80
SP - 181
EP - 186
JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings
JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings
SN - 0025-6196
IS - 2
ER -