Key result
The Coaguchek monitor was superior to the ProTime system in clinical correlation, with fewer INRs resulting in a different therapeutic decision compared to standard lab testing (8.3% vs 50%, p<0.005).
Why the study?
Do handheld prothrombin time monitoring devices (Coaguchek and ProTime) provide accurate and clinically correlated INR values compared to standard laboratory methods in ambulatory patients?
Population
Patients requiring prothrombin time monitoring in an ambulatory setting
Comparison
Coaguchek and ProTime Microcoagulation System… vs Standard laboratory methods for prothrombin time…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
May inform point-of-care INR device selection in ambulatory care; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
Observational
Do handheld prothrombin time monitoring devices (Coaguchek and ProTime) provide accurate and clinically correlated INR values compared to standard laboratory methods in ambulatory patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 8.3% vs 50%
p-value: p=<0.005
The Coaguchek handheld monitor provides superior accuracy and clinical correlation compared to the ProTime system for INR monitoring, and patients strongly prefer the finger stick method over venipuncture.
Chapman et al. (1999) conducted an observational in Patients requiring prothrombin time monitoring. Coaguchek monitor vs. ProTime Microcoagulation System was evaluated on INRs resulting in a different therapeutic decision compared to standard laboratory method (p=<0.005). The Coaguchek monitor was superior to the ProTime system in clinical correlation, with fewer INRs resulting in a different therapeutic decision compared to standard lab testing (8.3% vs 50%, p<0.005).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: