Why the study?
Does the Tenderlett automatic capillary testing device provide comparable INR results to usual lancets and venepuncture in anticoagulant clinic patients?
Does the Tenderlett automatic capillary testing device provide comparable INR results to usual lancets and venepuncture in anticoagulant clinic patients?
This study compares the accuracy and patient comfort of an automatic capillary testing device versus standard lancets and venepuncture for INR monitoring.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Device accuracy data remain preliminary in this cross-sectional analysis; leaves open need for randomized validation before INR clinic adoption.
Complaints from patients about the discomfort associated with capillary testing by lancets, and discrepancy between the results of capillary and venous prothrombin time testing prompted a search for an alternative method of sampling. Automatic capillary testing devices have been successfully used in children1 and were found to be less painful by patients and easy to use by technologists when piloted in our anticoagulant clinic. We tested one such device, the Tenderlett, in our clinic. Ethics committee approval was obtained from the New River Health Authority. All patients in a routine anticoagulant clinic were asked to participate in the study after they had been given oral and written explanations. Thirty seven patients (50% of total attenders) gave written consent and were asked to have two capillary tests—one with the usual lancet method and one with a Tenderlett device (ITC, Margate, UK)—and a venepuncture. The international normalised ratio …
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Donohue et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: