Why the study?
Does the choice of thromboplastin reagent and sampling method (Manchester vs Thrombotest, venous vs capillary) affect INR values in patients on warfarin?
Does the choice of thromboplastin reagent and sampling method (Manchester vs Thrombotest, venous vs capillary) affect INR values in patients on warfarin?
Different thromboplastin reagents and sampling methods can yield discrepant INR values, which may lead to inappropriate warfarin dosing.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Discrepant INRs by reagent and method may risk dosing errors; leaves open standardization needs and prospective validation.
The International Sensitivity Index (ISI) for different thromboplastin reagents is obtained by calibration against WHO reference preparations. It is hoped that calculation of the International Normalized Ratio (INR) from the ISI will permit accuracy and conformity in reporting laboratory assays of warfarin effect even across a range of different techniques. We have examined the INR values of 128 warfarin patients obtained by four different techniques in common use, namely venous and capillary Thrombotest and venous and capillary Manchester reagent. Discrepant INR values were obtained. The mean Manchester venous INR values were lower than those obtained by the other three methods (P less than 0.0001). This suggests that patients dosed by reference to Manchester venous INR are liable to receive more warfarin than those dosed by the other methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morrison et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: