Use of error grid analysis to evaluate acceptability of a point of care prothrombin time meter

Level of agreement between laboratory and point-of-care prothrombin time in patients after stopping or continuation of acenocoumarol anticoagulation: A comparison of diagnostic accuracy

BACKGROUND

Procedures requiring optimisation of the coagulation status of patients using vitamin K antagonists are frequently postponed due to the late availability of laboratory international normalised ratio (INR) test results. A point-of-care (POC) alternative may facilitate early decision-making in peri-operative patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the level of agreement between the POC-INR and the laboratory INR in patients who continue or stop vitamin K antagonists to determine whether the POC test may be a good alternative to the laboratory INR.

DESIGN

Study of diagnostic accuracy.

SETTING

Single-centre study at Zaans Medical Centre, The Netherlands.

PATIENTS

Included patients were scheduled for cardioversion (these continued taking vitamin K antagonists), or a surgical procedure (these stopped taking vitamin K antagonists).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The level of agreement and clinical acceptability of the laboratory and POC-INR results, evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis and error grid analysis.

RESULTS

The surgical and cardioversion groups consisted of 47 and 46 patients, respectively. The bias in the INR in the surgical group was -0.12 ± 0.09 with limits of agreement of -0.29 to 0.05, whereas the cardioversion group showed a bias in the INR of -0.22 ± 0.36 with limits of agreement from -0.93 to 0.48. The percentage errors between methods in the surgical and cardioversion groups were 16 and 21%, respectively. Error grid analysis showed that the diagnostic accuracy of the POC prothrombin time is clinically acceptable as the difference did not lead to a different clinical decision in the surgical group with INR values less than 1.8.

CONCLUSION

The current study shows a good level of agreement and clinical accuracy between the laboratory and POC-INR in patients who stopped anticoagulation intake for surgery. However, in patients who continued their anticoagulation therapy, the agreement between the two methods was less accurate.

Application of a Simulation Model to Estimate Treatment Error and Clinical Risk Derived from Point-of-Care International Normalized Ratio Device Analytic Performance

BACKGROUND

In 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed to enhance performance expectations for point-of-care testing (POCT) international normalized ratio (INR) devices relative to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17593:2007. The objective of the study was to estimate the frequency of warfarin dosing errors associated with a central laboratory INR method, a POCT INR method, and the proposed FDA performance goals.

METHODS

A data set of INR results (n = 51912) from adult patients with INR ≤4 was used to assess the influence of adding assay imprecision and bias on warfarin dose decisions. The frequency of error in warfarin dose and size of error (≥1 or ≥2 dose categories) was compared using published assay specifications for the Instrumentation Laboratory ACL TOP® and the Roche Diagnostics CoaguChek® XS relative to the proposed FDA guidelines.

RESULTS

The frequency of warfarin dose misclassification was largely influenced by bias and was not sensitive to assay imprecision. The central laboratory and POCT INR methods met the FDA performance specifications, had equal rates of ≥2 warfarin dose category error, and had statistically different rates of ≥1 warfarin dose category error in large samples (n >250).

CONCLUSIONS

Simulation models are useful tools for evaluating POCT INR assay performance criteria required to achieve the proposed FDA guidelines. This simulation depicted how the Roche Diagnostics CoaguChek XS instrument meets the guideline.

Correction factor to improve agreement between point-of-care and laboratory International Normalized Ratio values

PURPOSE

Results of a research project to quantify and improve the accuracy of point-of-care (POC) International Normalized Ratio (INR) values are reported.

METHODS

The accuracy of POC INR values relative to laboratory-measured INR values was retrospectively assessed in a cohort of patients with same-day INR determinations by both methods. Univariate linear regression was performed to derive a correction factor for POC INR values of >3; this correction factor was validated in a second cohort.

RESULTS

In the derivation cohort (259 patients and 344 paired INR results), agreement of POC values with corresponding laboratory INR values at two specified thresholds (±15% and ±25%) was 51.2% and 66.6%, respectively; for POC INR values of >3 (n = 205), agreement was lower (24.9% and 44.9%, respectively). Univariate linear regression yielded a coefficient of 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.79; p < 0.001). Applying a correction factor of 0.8 to POC INR values in a validation cohort (169 patients and 209 paired INR values) significantly improved the accuracy of POC INR values of >3 relative to laboratory values (from 7% to 71.1% at the lower threshold and from 23.5% to 88.8% at the higher threshold, p < 0.0001 for both comparisons).

CONCLUSION

Agreement between POC and laboratory INR results in one institution was poor, especially when POC INR values exceeded 3. Application of an institution-specific correction factor to POC INR values of >3 improved agreement with laboratory INR results but would not have significantly reduced differences in protocol-based warfarin dosage adjustments.

[Anesthetic management of severe or worsening postpartum hemorrhage]

INTRODUCTION

Risk factors of maternal morbidity and mortality during postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) include non-optimal anesthetic management. As the anesthetic management of the initial phase is addressed elsewhere, the current chapter is dedicated to the management of severe PPH.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed and Medline databases, and the Cochrane Library, for articles published from 2003 up to and including 2013. Several keywords related to anesthetic and critical care practice, and obstetrical management were used, in various combinations. Guidelines from several societies and organisations were also read.

RESULTS

When PPH worsens, one should ask for additional team personnel (professional consensus). Patients should be monitored for heart rate, blood pressure, skin and mucosal pallor, bleeding at skin puncture sites, diuresis and the volume of genital bleeding (grade B). Because of the possible rapid worsening of coagulapathy, patients should undergo regular evaluation of coagulation status (professional consensus). Prevention and management of hypothermia should be considered (professional consensus), by warming intravenous fluids and blood products, and by active body warming (grade C). Antibiotics should be given, if not already administered at the initial phase (professional consensus). Vascular fluids must be given (grade B), the choice being left at the physician discretion. Blood products transfusion should be decided based on the clinical severity of PPH (professional consensus). Priority is given to red blood cells (RBC) transfusion, with the aim to maintain Hb concentration>8g/dL. The first round of products could include 3 units of RBC (professional consensus), and the following round 3 units of RBC, and 3 units of fresh frozen plasma (FFP). The FFP:RBC ratio should be kept between 1:2 and 1:1 (professional consensus). Depending on the etiology of PPH, the early administration of FFP is left at the discretion of the physician (professional consensus). Platelet count should be maintained at>50 G/L (professional consensus). During massive PPH, fibrinogen concentration should be maintained at>2g/L (professional consensus). Fibrinogen can be given without prior fibrinogen measurement in case of massive bleeding (professional consensus). General anesthesia should be considered in case of hemodynamic instability, even when an epidural catheter is in place (professional consensus).

CONCLUSION

The anesthetic management aims to restore and maintain optimal respiratory state and circulation, to treat coagulation disorders, and to allow invasive obstetrical and radiologic procedures. Clinical and instrumental monitoring are needed to evaluate the severity of PPH, to guide the choice of therapeutic options, and to assess treatments efficacy.

Comparison of international normalized ratio measurement between CoaguChek XS Plus and STA-R coagulation analyzers

Background. Point-of-care testing (POCT) coagulometers are increasingly being used in the hospital setting. We investigated whether the prothrombin time international normalized ratio (INR) results by CoaguChek XS Plus (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) can be used reliably without being confirmed with the INR results by STA-R system (Diagnostica Stago S.A.S, Asnières sur Seine, France). Methods. A total of 118 INR measurements by CoaguChek XS Plus and STA-R were compared using Passing/Bablok regression analysis and Bland-Altman plot. Agreement of the INR measurements was further assessed in relation to dosing decision. Results. The correlation of INR measurements between CoaguChek XS Plus and STA-R was excellent (correlation coefficient = 0.964). The mean difference tended to increase as INR results increased and was 0.25 INR in the therapeutic range (2.0-3.0 INR). The overall agreement was fair to good (kappa = 0.679), and 21/118 (17.8%) INR measurements showed a difference in dosing decision. Conclusion. The positive bias of CoaguChek XS Plus may be obvious even in the therapeutic INR range, and dosing decision based on the CoaguChek XS Plus INR results would be different from that based on the STA-R results. The INR measurements by POCT coagulometers still need to be confirmed with the laboratory INR measurements.

Comparative performance of two methods that assess the quality of international normalized ratio measures

OBJECTIVES

Two methods, Petersen's error grid analysis and Shermock's method to detect clinically important differences, were recently developed to advance the assessment of analytic performance of point-of-care INR devices. Both methods predict when alternate INR measures lead to different clinical decisions. Our goal was to compare their performance characteristics.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Performance characteristics were assessed by comparing the models' predictions to clinical decisions that were directly measured in a previous experiment.

RESULTS

Shermock's method (82% of predictions correct) demonstrated superior predictive performance compared with the error grid analysis (75% of predictions correct, p=0.008). Shermock's method was particularly superior at identifying the clinical decisions that actually disagreed (79% for Shermock's method vs. 47% for error grid). Consequently, Shermock's method was superior at identifying a POC device with poor performance (79% accuracy vs. 70%, p=0.006).

CONCLUSION

Shermock's method had superior performance characteristics and should be integrated into analytic strategies to assess POC INR devices.

Point-of-care testing (POCT): Current techniques and future perspectives

Point-of-care testing (POCT) is a laboratory-medicine discipline that is evolving rapidly in analytical scope and clinical application. In this review, we first describe the state of the art of medical-laboratory tests that can be performed near the patient. At present, POCT ranges from basic blood-glucose measurement to complex viscoelastic coagulation assays. POCT shortens the time to clinical decision-making about additional testing or therapy, as delays are no longer caused by transport and preparation of clinical samples, and biochemical-test results are rapidly available at the point of care. Improved medical outcome and lower costs may ensue. Recent, evolving technological advances enable the development of novel POCT instruments. We review the underlying analytical techniques. If new instruments are not yet in practical use, it is often hard to decide whether the underlying analytical principle has real advantage over former methods. However, future utilization of POCT also depends on health-care trends and new areas of application. But, even today, it can be assumed that, for certain applications, near-patient testing is a useful complement to conventional laboratory analyses.