Importance of device evaluation for point-of-care prothrombin time international normalized ratio testing programs

Robert D. McBane, Cindy L. Felty, Mindy L. Hartgers, Rajeev Chaudhry, Lisa K. Beyer, Paula J. Santrach

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

33 Scopus citations

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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)181-186
Number of pages6
JournalMayo Clinic proceedings
Volume80
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2005

    Fingerprint

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

McBane, R. D., Felty, C. L., Hartgers, M. L., Chaudhry, R., Beyer, L. K., & Santrach, P. J. (2005). Importance of device evaluation for point-of-care prothrombin time international normalized ratio testing programs. Mayo Clinic proceedings, 80(2), 181-186. https://doi.org/10.4065/80.2.181