Potential dosing errors using portable prothrombin time monitoring devices

Precision and accuracy of the new XPrecia Stride mobile coagulometer

INTRODUCTION

Oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) with coumarins (vitamin K antagonist) is the most used against thromboembolism. Prothrombin time (PT) International Normalized Ratio (INR) monitoring is fundamental to establish coumarins dosage and prevent bleeding complications or thrombotic events. In this contest, the method and apparatus used for providing the INR measurements are crucial. Several studies have been published regarding the precision and accuracy of mobile coagulometers with different conclusions. No studies have been published regarding the new XPrecia Stride Mobile Coagulometer (Siemens). The aim of this work is to analyze precision and accuracy of the new XPrecia Stride mobile coagulometer to provide recommendations for clinical use and quality control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 163 patients (mean age=77.4years old) under Warfarin OAT for whom the INR was assessed by both the traditional cs 2100i Sysmex and the new Xprecia Stride Mobile Coagulometer were included in this pilot study.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The precision of the new mobile coagulometer resulted very good (CV<3%). The analytical accuracy was also within the acceptable ranges of reliability (Lin's concordance=0.962). Finally, the clinical accuracy was also acceptable (deviation>15% from the true value in 20% of cases). Considering the overall results obtained by the new Xprecia Stride in comparison to that ones obtained from the other commercial devices, we can conclude that the new coagulometer is enough reliable for clinical settings. However, a larger trial to confirm these data is needed.

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.

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.

Precision and accuracy of point-of-care testing coagulometers used for self-testing and self-management of oral anticoagulation therapy

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulation therapy is monitored by the use of the International Normalized Ratio (INR). Patients who perform self-testing or self-management use a point-of-care testing (POCT) coagulometer (INR monitor) to estimate their INRs. A precondition for a correct dosage of coumarins is a correct INR estimation, and the method and apparatus used for providing the INR measurements are crucial in this context. Several studies have been published regarding the precision and accuracy of these POCT coagulometers, and have led to diverse conclusions. It is difficult and challenging to perform an overview of the literature, owing to the vast amount of papers, with differences in design, statistical analysis, etc.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the current literature, especially regarding the precision and accuracy of the POCT coagulometers, to provide recommendations for clinical use and quality control, and to point out areas for future research.

METHODS

We included a total of 22 studies, of which four were characterized as high-quality studies.

RESULTS

The precision of the POCT coagulometers was generally adequate for clinical use. Their performance in terms of accuracy has to be viewed in the context of the inherent inaccuracies of INR measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of POCT coagulometers seems, in this respect, to be generally acceptable, and they can be used in a clinical setting.

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

BACKGROUND

Statistical methods (linear regression, correlation analysis, etc.) are frequently employed in comparing methods in the central laboratory (CL). Assessing acceptability of point of care testing (POCT) equipment, however, is more difficult because statistically significant biases may not have an impact on clinical care. We showed how error grid (EG) analysis can be used to evaluate POCT PT INR with the CL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We compared results from 103 patients seen in an anti-coagulation clinic that were on Coumadin maintenance therapy using fingerstick samples for POCT (Roche CoaguChek XS and S) and citrated venous blood samples for CL (Stago STAR). To compare clinical acceptability of results we developed an EG with zones A, B, C and D.

RESULTS

Using 2nd order polynomial equation analysis, POCT results highly correlate with the CL for CoaguChek XS (R(2)=0. 955) and CoaguChek S (R(2)=0. 93), respectively but does not indicate if POCT results are clinically interchangeable with the CL. Using EG it is readily apparent which levels can be considered clinically identical to the CL despite analytical bias.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated the usefulness of EG in determining acceptability of POCT PT INR testing and how it can be used to determine cut-offs where differences in POCT results may impact clinical care.

Influence of the centrifuge time of primary plasma tubes on routine coagulation testing

Preparation of blood specimens is a major bottleneck in the laboratory throughput. Reliable strategies for reducing the time required for specimen processing without affecting quality should be acknowledged, especially for laboratories performing stat analyses. The present investigation was planned to establish a minimal suitable centrifuge time for primary samples collected for routine coagulation testing. Five sequential primary vacuum tubes containing 0.109 mol/l buffered trisodium citrate were collected from 10 volunteers and were immediately centrifuged on a conventional centrifuge at 1500 x g, at room temperature for 1, 2, 5, 10 and 15 min, respectively. Hematological and routine coagulation testing, including prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time and fibrinogen, were performed. The centrifugation time was inversely associated with residual blood cell elements in plasma, especially platelets. Statistically significant variations from the reference 15-min centrifuge specimens were observed for fibrinogen in samples centrifuged for 5 min at most and for the activated partial thromboplastin time in samples centrifuged for 2 min at most. Meaningful biases related to the desirable bias were observed for fibrinogen in samples centrifuged for 2 min at most, and for the activated partial thromboplastin time in samples centrifuged for 1 min at most. According to our experimental conditions, a 5-10 min centrifuge time at 1500 x g may be suitable for primary tubes collected for routine coagulation testing.

A randomized trial comparing INR monitoring devices in patients with anticoagulation self-management: evaluation of a novel error-grid approach

BACKGROUND

In addition to the metrological quality of international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring devices used in patients' self-management of long-term anticoagulation, the effectiveness of self-monitoring with such devices has to be evaluated under real-life conditions with a focus on clinical implications. An approach to evaluate the clinical significance of inaccuracies is the error-grid analysis as already established in self-monitoring of blood glucose. Two anticoagulation monitors were compared in a real-life setting and a novel error-grid instrument for oral anticoagulation has been evaluated.

METHODS

In a randomized crossover study 16 patients performed self-management of anticoagulation using the INRatio and the CoaguChek S system. Main outcome measures were clinically relevant INR differences according to established criteria and to the error-grid approach.

RESULTS

A lower rate of clinically relevant disagreements according to Anderson's criteria was found with CoaguChek S than with INRatio without statistical significance (10.77% vs. 12.90%; P = 0.787). Using the error-grid we found principally consistent results: More measurement pairs with discrepancies of no or low clinical relevance were found with CoaguChek S, whereas with INRatio we found more differences with a moderate clinical relevance. A high rate of patients' satisfaction with both of the point of care devices was found with only marginal differences.

CONCLUSIONS

A principal appropriateness of the investigated point-of-care devices to adequately monitor the INR is shown. The error-grid is useful for comparing monitoring methods with a focus on clinical relevance under real-life conditions beyond assessing the pure metrological quality, but we emphasize that additional trials using this instrument with larger patient populations are needed to detect differences in clinically relevant disagreements.

INR comparison between the CoaguChek® S and a standard laboratory method among patients with self-management of oral anticoagulation

INTRODUCTION

Portable coagulation monitors have been developed to measure International Normalised Ratio (INR) in orally anticoagulated patients using capillary whole blood from a finger stick. Because of unsatisfactory precision of some of the monitors in comparison with laboratory methods new devices are being developed. In the present study we compared INR determination with the CoaguChek S device with a standard laboratory method among patients with self-management of oral anticoagulation (OAC).

METHODS

Two hundred and forty-two patients performing self-management of OAC were enrolled into this study. Parallel INR measurements were performed within one hour. Capillary INR measurements (INRcap) were done by the patients with the CoaguChek S and venous INR (INRven) by qualified medical staff using a standard laboratory method.

RESULTS

We found a correlation coefficient (r(S)) of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.88) among the 242 patients between INRven and INRcap. In 84.4% of the INR parallel measurements the difference between the two values was below 0.5 INR units. In only 2 of 242 cases the difference was >1 INR unit (1.1 and 1.3). The slope of the Passing Bablok regression line was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83-1.0) and the y-intercept 0.06 (95% CI: -0.20-0.25). Agreement between both methods was 90.5% (95% CI: 86.8-94.2) and standard-agreement even 97.1% (95% CI: 95-99.2).

CONCLUSIONS

INR measurement with CoaguChek S device by trained patients revealed reliable results in comparison to the values obtained with a standard laboratory method.

Low-molecular-weight heparin may alter point-of-care assay for international normalized ratio

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the international normalized ratio (INR) measured by a point-of-care testing device with that measured by a reference laboratory method for patients receiving either warfarin only or warfarin plus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH).

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Outpatient anticoagulation clinic.

SUBJECTS

Ninety-one patients receiving warfarin for various indications; 59 of them receiving only warfarin and 32 receiving warfarin plus LMWH.

INTERVENTION

Capillary blood was obtained for INR determination by a point-of-care device, and venous blood was obtained for INR determination in a standard reference laboratory.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-one patients had INR pairs run on a point-of-care device and by the laboratory. In both the patients receiving only warfarin and in those receiving warfarin plus LMWH, the mean INR as determined by the point-of-care testing device was statistically significantly higher than the mean INR determined by the laboratory. Although the differences were statistically significant in both groups, the clinical significance of this difference was accentuated in the patients receiving warfarin plus LMWH. The measure of divergence between the point-of-care and laboratory methods was greater in the group receiving warfarin plus LMWH than in the warfarin-only group, with a mean +/- SD percent change between the INR values of 24.19 +/- 27.54% in the warfarin plus LMWH group and 7.21 +/- 17.73% in the warfarin-only group. In assessing the clinical impact of such variability, a greater degree of discordance in dosing adjustment decisions was noted for patients receiving warfarin plus LMWH. In this group, a 25% rate of discordance was noted compared with 8% in the warfarin-only group. Such discrepancy in dosing decisions based on the point-of-care INR would have resulted in discontinuation of LMWH therapy before the patient acquired a true therapeutic INR, with use of the laboratory measurement.

CONCLUSION

The INR measured with the point-of-care device in patients receiving concurrent LMWH and warfarin therapy may be inaccurate. Patients receiving LMWH in addition to warfarin should have INRs checked by means of the standard reference laboratory method.

Patient self-testing is a reliable and acceptable alternative to laboratory INR monitoring

SAn ageing population and the continuing expansion of clinical indications for coumadin therapy have increased pressure on hospital anticoagulant clinics. One solution is patient self-testing (PST) of the international normalized ratio (INR) using capillary blood samples on point-of-care coagulation monitors at home. We conducted a prospective study to determine whether patients can achieve accurate INR values through PST, using the CoaguChek S (Roche Diagnostics, Lewes, UK). The main outcome measurements were: comparability of INR values obtained by PST and the hospital laboratory, patient acceptability as assessed by a questionnaire and anticoagulant control. Eighty-four patients [53 men, 31 women; median age 59 years (range 26-83)], receiving long-term oral anticoagulation (warfarin), were recruited from our Anticoagulation Clinic. Patients were randomized to weekly self-testing or continuing 4-weekly hospital laboratory monitoring of INR. Comparison of INRs (n = 234) showed no significant differences between the CoaguChek (median INR 3.02) and laboratory testing (median INR 3.07). There was excellent correlation between the two methods (r = 0.95), with 85% of CoaguChek results within 0.5 INR units of the laboratory method. On four occasions, differences of >1 unit INR were obtained, but in each case the patient's anticoagulation was unstable (INR >4.5 by both methods) and the differences in INR would not have altered patient management. 87% of patients found self-testing straightforward, 87% were confident in the result they obtained and 77% preferred self-testing. We conclude that PST is a reliable alternative to hospital clinic attendance and is acceptable to the majority of suitably trained patients.

Prothrombin time international normalized ratio monitoring by self-testing

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The increasing numbers of patients on oral anticoagulants may challenge the traditional organization of patient monitoring. The availability of portable coagulometers capable of measuring prothrombin time (PT) international normalized ratio (INR) in a drop of capillary blood facilitates decentralization of monitoring by self-testing. This article reviews the literature on use of portable coagulometers.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous studies have evaluated the reliability of portable coagulometers in testing the PT-INR. This has been assessed by statistically as well as clinically relevant criteria. Other studies have been devoted to developing calibration models fulfilling the criteria recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for the calibration of INR measuring systems. Finally, studies have assessed the value of schemes for patient training and for the long-term quality assurance of portable coagulometers.

SUMMARY

It can be concluded from the published studies that PT-INR self-testing may be considered as a suitable alternative to conventional laboratory testing. For the PT-INR to be reliable, manufacturers of portable coagulometers should calibrate their devices against international standards for thromboplastin with procedures similar to those recommended by WHO for conventional measuring systems. Training of patients and implementation of appropriate quality assessment schemes are also essential prerequisites for the success of PT-INR self-testing.