Key result
Point-of-care PT/INR testing correlates strongly with standard lab testing but performs poorly above INR 4.
Why the study?
Methods of PT and INR testing are not standardized across centers, resulting in disparities among laboratories that challenge clinical decision-making.
Does point-of-care PT/INR testing correlate with standardized laboratory testing in patients on long-term oral anticoagulation?
Observational (n=205)
Does point-of-care PT/INR testing correlate with standardized laboratory testing in patients on long-term oral anticoagulation?
Point-of-care PT/INR testing shows strong correlation with standard laboratory testing in therapeutic and subtherapeutic ranges, offering a reliable alternative for monitoring oral anticoagulation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support point-of-care INR monitoring in therapeutic ranges; leaves open accuracy concerns for values >4.
Background: In our country, methods of prothrombin time (PT) and international normalized ratio (INR) testing have not been standardized across various centers. Often, we find disparity in INR values from different laboratories, posing a challenge to make an appropriate clinical decision. Objective: The objective of the study was to compare and correlate the PT/INR values using a point-of-care (POC) system with standardized laboratory (SL) testing and to evaluate the efficiency of the POC system in monitoring patients. Methods: We have prospectively compared PT/INR values between a commercially available POC, CoaguChek XS System, Roche, and SL testing in 205 patients and 353 samples from July 2017 to April 2018. Results: The overall strong correlation between POC PT/INR values and simultaneous standard laboratory values was noted. The overall coefficient of correlation among the two groups was 0.919 (P = 0.001) for INR values. In INR range of 2–3.5, the values correlated well with a coefficient of correlation, 0.756 (P = 0.001). In INR range <2, the values correlated with a coefficient of 0.98. The correlation was poor when the INR values were >4. Conclusions: In this comparison study, statistical analysis yielded a good correlation between POC PT/INR values and SL values in therapeutic and subtherapeutic range. POC testing is a good alternative to SL testing. If widely available, POC testing may enable patient self-testing and self-monitoring. In our experience, POC testing had added benefits in emergency settings. However, clinicians and laboratory professionals should be aware of the occasional disagreement between POC INR and standard laboratory INR values.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Palaparti et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Long-term oral anticoagulation (n=205). Point-of-care (POC) PT/INR testing (CoaguChek XS System) vs. Standardized laboratory (SL) testing was evaluated on Correlation of PT/INR values between POC and SL testing (Correlation coefficient 0.919, p=0.001). Point-of-care PT/INR testing demonstrated a strong overall correlation with standardized laboratory testing, although correlation was poor for INR values >4.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: