Key result
The author questions the necessity of relying on the international sensitivity index and international normalized ratio data instead of simply using the PT control on patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A letter to the editor questioning the necessity of INR and suggesting the use of simple PT control ratios for monitoring anticoagulation therapy.
To the Editor.— The article by Bussey et al1and the accompanying editorial by Hirsh2on prothrombin time (PT) ratios and errors in anticoagulation therapy in the February 1992 issue of theARCHIVESwere both informative and extremely important in the area of anticoagulation. Unfortunately, these articles did not address what seemingly is a fundamental question in this area. It seems as though, instead of relying on the international sensitivity index the international normalized ratio data, we could simply use the PT control on our patients and compare this to the PT values once our patients undergo anticoagulation therapy, given the fact that for both the control and our patient samples the same thromboplastin is used, regardless of what the international sensitivity index values of the thromboplastin are at that current time. For example, if the PT control is 11.8 seconds and the PT of our patient sample
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
T. Karl Hoskison (1992) conducted a letter in Anticoagulation therapy. Prothrombin time (PT) ratios was evaluated. The author questions the necessity of relying on the international sensitivity index and international normalized ratio data instead of simply using the PT control on patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: