Why the study?
Does the method of INR measurement (venous vs capillary, Thrombotest vs PT) affect the resulting INR value in warfarin patients?
Does the method of INR measurement (venous vs capillary, Thrombotest vs PT) affect the resulting INR value in warfarin patients?
Different INR measurement techniques yield discrepant values, with Manchester venous INR potentially leading to higher warfarin dosing compared to other methods.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Lower Manchester venous INR may prompt higher warfarin dosing; leaves open whether method-specific calibration improves anticoagulation safety.
We have examined the INR values of 128 warfarin patients obtained by four different techniques in common use in Scotland namely venous and capillary. Thrombotest and venous and capillary Prothrombin Time (PT). The PT INRs were carried out using Manchester Reagent thromboplastin. 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 patient's 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.
McQuaker et al. (1990) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: