The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Clinically significant differences between point-of-care analysers and a standard analyser for monitoring the International Normalized Ratio in oral anticoagulant therapy: a multi-instrument evaluation in a hospital outpatient setting

Clinically significant differences between point-of-care analysers and a standard analyser for monitoring the International Normalized Ratio in oral anticoagulant therapy: a multi-instrument evaluation in a hospital outpatient setting
Clinically significant differences between point-of-care analysers and a standard analyser for monitoring the International Normalized Ratio in oral anticoagulant therapy: a multi-instrument evaluation in a hospital outpatient setting

The increasing number of patients requiring oral anticoagulant therapy has lead to an expansion in the use of point-of-care test (POCT) analysers for measuring the International Normalized Ratio (INR) for monitoring purposes. Availability of new technology inevitably leads to comparisons with standard methodologies, and studies to date have reached varying conclusions about the comparability of POCT INRs with conventional testing. We compared the performance of five POCT instruments (Hemochron Junior Signature, ProTime, CoaguChek S, INRatio and TAS) against Innovin thromboplastin on a Sysmex CA1500 automated analyser. The Hemochron Junior Signature, ProTime and CoaguChek S demonstrated strong correlation with the laboratory method (R2 > 0.94). These three analysers demonstrated higher percentages of paired results within 0.5 INR units (81.5, 92.0 and 74.0%, respectively); the INRatio and TAS demonstrated 54.2 and 62.2%, respectively. Within INR ranges of up to 2.0, 2.1-3.0, 3.1-4.0 and above 4.0, none of the POCT analysers demonstrated significant agreement with the standard method in every range. All POCT instruments showed a degree of bias and greater variation from the standard method at INR values above 3.0. These data indicate the potential for POCT analysers to generate INR values sufficiently different from conventional methods that they may impact on clinical decision-making.

Anticoagulants/therapeutic use, Bias, Blood Coagulation Tests/instrumentation, Drug Monitoring/instrumentation, Humans, International Normalized Ratio/instrumentation, Outpatients, Point-of-Care Systems/standards, Reproducibility of Results
0957-5235
287-292
Moore, Gary W
4a0d6b47-e6ba-458a-bc31-33431fef5a5a
Henley, Alexis
a6ddd522-1789-489f-a950-c7bf3cd533d1
Cotton, Shawn S
6c8f0c47-092d-49d9-89d3-0738bd9e1989
Tugnait, Sanjiv
ac8ffb8c-4389-407a-8dc3-1d671c7f0cbc
Rangarajan, Savita
9a5e4c7e-55ba-4a3a-b5f6-f1e269d927c3
Moore, Gary W
4a0d6b47-e6ba-458a-bc31-33431fef5a5a
Henley, Alexis
a6ddd522-1789-489f-a950-c7bf3cd533d1
Cotton, Shawn S
6c8f0c47-092d-49d9-89d3-0738bd9e1989
Tugnait, Sanjiv
ac8ffb8c-4389-407a-8dc3-1d671c7f0cbc
Rangarajan, Savita
9a5e4c7e-55ba-4a3a-b5f6-f1e269d927c3

Moore, Gary W, Henley, Alexis, Cotton, Shawn S, Tugnait, Sanjiv and Rangarajan, Savita (2007) Clinically significant differences between point-of-care analysers and a standard analyser for monitoring the International Normalized Ratio in oral anticoagulant therapy: a multi-instrument evaluation in a hospital outpatient setting. Blood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis, 18 (3), 287-292. (doi:10.1097/MBC.0b013e328040c105).

Record type: Article

Abstract

The increasing number of patients requiring oral anticoagulant therapy has lead to an expansion in the use of point-of-care test (POCT) analysers for measuring the International Normalized Ratio (INR) for monitoring purposes. Availability of new technology inevitably leads to comparisons with standard methodologies, and studies to date have reached varying conclusions about the comparability of POCT INRs with conventional testing. We compared the performance of five POCT instruments (Hemochron Junior Signature, ProTime, CoaguChek S, INRatio and TAS) against Innovin thromboplastin on a Sysmex CA1500 automated analyser. The Hemochron Junior Signature, ProTime and CoaguChek S demonstrated strong correlation with the laboratory method (R2 > 0.94). These three analysers demonstrated higher percentages of paired results within 0.5 INR units (81.5, 92.0 and 74.0%, respectively); the INRatio and TAS demonstrated 54.2 and 62.2%, respectively. Within INR ranges of up to 2.0, 2.1-3.0, 3.1-4.0 and above 4.0, none of the POCT analysers demonstrated significant agreement with the standard method in every range. All POCT instruments showed a degree of bias and greater variation from the standard method at INR values above 3.0. These data indicate the potential for POCT analysers to generate INR values sufficiently different from conventional methods that they may impact on clinical decision-making.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: April 2007
Keywords: Anticoagulants/therapeutic use, Bias, Blood Coagulation Tests/instrumentation, Drug Monitoring/instrumentation, Humans, International Normalized Ratio/instrumentation, Outpatients, Point-of-Care Systems/standards, Reproducibility of Results

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 443325
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/443325
ISSN: 0957-5235
PURE UUID: 05b56674-5ffb-4f21-a400-ecfe6335895d
ORCID for Savita Rangarajan: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-7367-133X

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 20 Aug 2020 16:33
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:02

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Gary W Moore
Author: Alexis Henley
Author: Shawn S Cotton
Author: Sanjiv Tugnait

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×