Why the study?
Does the portable coagulometer CoaguChek accurately measure INR compared to routine laboratory methods in patients on oral anticoagulant therapy?
Does the portable coagulometer CoaguChek accurately measure INR compared to routine laboratory methods in patients on oral anticoagulant therapy?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The CoaguChek portable coagulometer shows good correlation with routine laboratory methods for INR monitoring, particularly with capillary blood systems.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the portable coagulometer CoaguChek (Roche Diagnostics) as a prothrombin time (PT) monitor, and to correlate capillary blood results with those of three different routine methods used for monitoring oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT): capillary, plasma and whole blood samples. Three hospitals participated in the study with a total of 235 patients on OAT. The international normalized ratio (INR) results obtained with CoaguChek were compared with those obtained using each of the routine methods. The study presents a good correlation between the PT monitor and the three methods studied: r = 0.9745 (hospital A), r = 0.9283 (hospital B), r = 0.9136 (hospital C). A simplified concordance test of the methods results in a nine-field comparison table showing concordances of 87.2, 85.7 and 68.4%, respectively. The absolute difference (mean +/- SD) between laboratory A and CoaguChek INRs was 0.0571 +/- 0.2042, with values of 0.04286 +/- 0.3906 for laboratory B and 0.6986 +/- 0.6170 for laboratory C. These results confirm that CoaguChek could be used as a new method for oral anticoagulant monitoring, and is in best agreement with the capillary blood PT system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vacas et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: