Key result
Point-of-care INR testing shows excellent correlation with lab analyzers but supratherapeutic bias may affect dosing.
Why the study?
Does a POCT coagulometer provide reliable INR measurements compared to a standard laboratory analyzer for dosing decisions in outpatients on oral anticoagulants?
Population
200 INR measurements from patients in an outpatient oral anticoagulant clinic
Comparison
Point-of-care testing coagulometer vs Standard laboratory analyzer (Sysmex CS2000i)
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
May require lab confirmation for supratherapeutic INRs; leaves open prospective validation before routine adoption.
Observational (n=200)
Does a POCT coagulometer provide reliable INR measurements compared to a standard laboratory analyzer for dosing decisions in outpatients on oral anticoagulants?
Mean Difference: 0.21
POCT coagulometers show excellent overall agreement with standard laboratory analyzers for INR monitoring, but positive bias in the supratherapeutic range may require laboratory confirmation for dosing decisions.
Moiz et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Oral anticoagulant therapy (n=200). POCT coagulometer (CoaguChek XS Pro) vs. Laboratory analyzer (Sysmex CS2000i) was evaluated on Agreement of prothrombin time INR results (MD 0.21). Point-of-care INR testing using CoaguChek XS Pro showed excellent correlation (r=0.973) with standard laboratory analyzers, though a positive bias in the supratherapeutic range may affect dosing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: