Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: To report a comparison of international normalization ratio (INR) measurements on four near-patient (point-of-care or bedside) whole blood INR monitors in children. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The INR results from 19 ambulatory pediatric subjects (30 hospital visits) receiving warfarin sodium were analyzed on four near-patient monitors and compared with plasma INR measurements on the laboratory CA-1000 Analyze. The instruments evaluated were CoaguChek, Hemochron Jr. Signature, ProTime Microcoagulation System, and RapidpointCoag. RESULTS: The INR measurements ranged from 1.05 to 5.25. Over the entire INR range, the near-patient instrument with the least bias relative to the CA-1000 was the RapidpointCoag (r(2) = 0.923). The correlations (r(2)) of the CoaguCheck, Hemochron Jr., and ProTime were 0.877, 0.834, and 0.885, respectively. Precision studies involved repeated analysis of one nonmedicated adult (mean CA-1000 INR = 0.908) and one adult receiving oral anticoagulation therapy (mean CA-1000 INR = 2.42). The coefficient of variation on the near-patient monitors for both adult volunteers ranged from 4.9% to 22.3%. Bilirubin levels up to 20 mg/dL did not interfere in any of the methods. CONCLUSIONS: Near-patient testing whole blood INR monitors offer acceptably accurate and precise measurements. Values obtained on near-patient monitors may vary considerably from the reference method, and data obtained should serve as a supplement to, but not a replacement for, routine clinical laboratory measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nowatzke et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: