Key result
The responsiveness of thromboplastins used to measure prothrombin time ratios varies markedly across laboratories, supporting the use of the international normalized ratio (INR).
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Highlights the necessity of using INR over PT ratios due to the marked variability in thromboplastin responsiveness across laboratories.
In Reply.— I think that Hoskison and Boomer may have missed the point of the argument made for using the international sensitivity index (ISI) and international normalized ratio (INR). The study by Bussey and associates1has demonstrated that the thromboplastins used to measure the prothrombin time (PT) ratios vary markedly across laboratories in the United States. Other studies have shown that the responsiveness (ISI values) of thromboplastins can vary when the laboratory purchases a new batch of thromboplastin from the same vendor. Therefore, using the example given by Hoskison and Boomer, for a control PT of 11.8 seconds and a patient PT of 15.5 seconds, the PT ratio would be 1.3. If a very responsive thromboplastin is used (for example, one that is similar in responsiveness to the World Health Organization Standard [ISI of 1.0]), this ratio of 1.3 would constitute an INR of 1.3. If, on the other
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jack Hirsh (1992) conducted a letter in Anticoagulation monitoring. International Normalized Ratio (INR) vs. Prothrombin Time (PT) ratio was evaluated. The responsiveness of thromboplastins used to measure prothrombin time ratios varies markedly across laboratories, supporting the use of the international normalized ratio (INR).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: