Why the study?
Does the Coaguchek portable monitor provide comparable INR values to routine laboratory methods in patients on oral anticoagulant treatment?
Does the Coaguchek portable monitor provide comparable INR values to routine laboratory methods in patients on oral anticoagulant treatment?
The Coaguchek portable monitor demonstrates acceptable correlation with standard laboratory methods for INR determination, supporting its use for self-testing in anticoagulated patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support Coaguchek for point-of-care INR monitoring; leaves open prospective validation of agreement with laboratory methods.
Self-testing of oral anticoagulation is a new possibility related to the development of portable capillary whole blood prothrombin time monitors. The aim of this study was to evaluate one of this monitors, Coaguchek, with respect to its comparability with our routine prothrombin time determination system, as well as with the reference manual technique and two thromboplastins of high sensitivity, Manchester Reagent and one manufactured in our center, Thromboplastin Bilbao, in a group of patients on oral anticoagulant treatment. Although a correlation of r = 0.9271 was found between international normalized ratio (INR) values of Coaguchek and our routine method, Neoplastine/STA analyzer, the difference of the INR scatter increased with the magnitude of measurement, being lowest for INR between the portable monitor and Manchester Reagent and Thromboplastin Bilbao, with a similar coefficient of correlation, r = 0.8948 and r = 0.8905, respectively. A test was performed showing a 65.6% agreement with the INR values of the STA analyzer, 66.4% with Manchester Reagent and 73.4% with Thromboplastin Bilbao. On the basis of this correspondence with laboratory prothrombin time results Coaguchek may be considered as a possible option for monitoring anticoagulated patients even though patients should be given instructions and advice as regards the management and interpretation of the results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vacas et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: