Why the study?
Does point-of-care INR measurement agree with hospital laboratory INR measurement in patients on warfarin self-management?
Does point-of-care INR measurement agree with hospital laboratory INR measurement in patients on warfarin self-management?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Point-of-care INR testing shows acceptable accuracy compared to laboratory testing, though a small failure rate of agreement highlights the need for external quality control systems.
Patients using anticoagulation point-of-care (POC) monitors are advised to periodically test these systems against laboratory methods to monitor performance. The international normalized ratio (INR), however, can vary between test systems owing to different instrument-reagent combinations. In a randomized study evaluating warfarin self-management, we compared INR measured by patients on a POC monitor (ProTime, International Technidyne Corporation, Edison, NJ) with those obtained at a hospital laboratory within 1 hour. Ninety-one paired INR determinations from 55 patients met inclusion criteria. Clinical agreement in which POC and laboratory INR were within or outside the target INR range occurred in 56 (62%) of 91 cases (κ = 0.35). The mean (SD) difference between POC and laboratory INR was 0.44 (0.61). Six pairs differed by 1 or more INR units, 3 at study initiation resulting in POC monitor replacement. The accuracy of INR self-testing with ProTime was acceptable. The small failure rate of INR agreement might be clinically important, suggesting the need for external quality control systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sunderji et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: