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

Comparison of the International Normalized Ratio Between a Point-of-Care Test and a Conventional Laboratory Test: the Latter Performs Better in Assessing Warfarin-induced Changes in Coagulation Factors

Background

Point-of-care testing (POCT) coagulometers are increasingly used for monitoring warfarin therapy. However, in high international normalized ratio (INR) ranges, significant discrepancy in the INR between POCT and conventional laboratory tests occurs. We compared the INR of POCT (CoaguChek XS Plus; Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) with that of a conventional laboratory test (ACL TOP 750; Instrumentation Laboratory SpA, Milan, Italy) and explored possible reasons for discrepancy.

Methods

Paired POCT and conventional laboratory test INRs were analyzed in 400 samples from 126 patients undergoing warfarin therapy after cardiac surgery. Coagulation factor and thrombin generation tests were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Correlations between coagulation factors and INRs were determined using Pearson correlation coefficients.

Results

The mean difference in the INR between the tests increased at high INR ranges. Endogenous thrombin potential levels were decreased at INR <2.0 for CoaguChek XS Plus and 2.0< INR <3.0 for ACL TOP 750 compared with those at INR <2.0 for both tests, indicating a better performance of ACL TOP 750 in assessing thrombin changes. The correlation coefficients of coagulation factors were stronger for ACL TOP 750 INR than for CoaguChek XS Plus INR. Vitamin K-dependent coagulation factors were found to contribute to the INR discrepancy.

Conclusions

Decreases in vitamin K-dependent coagulation and anticoagulation factors can explain the significant discrepancy between the two tests in high INR ranges. Since conventional laboratory test INR values are more reliable than POCT INR values, a confirmatory conventional laboratory test is required for high INR ranges.

CoaguChek® XS versus standard laboratory prothrombin time for anticoagulant monitoring in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome

INTRODUCTION

The standard of care for thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Prothrombin time, and its corresponding international normalized ratio (INR), is the laboratory test routinely performed to assess anticoagulation. Self-management of VKA therapy using point-of-care (POC) devices seems to be an attractive option.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy of a POC device (CoaguChek XS) in APS patients by comparing it with venous laboratory INR. Furthermore, we analyzed whether other clinical and laboratory features could interfere with the CoaguChek XS results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a single-center cross-sectional study with 94 APS patients from a tertiary rheumatology clinic performed from August 2014 to March 2015. The comparison between CoaguChek XS and venous laboratory INR results was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (r) followed by the Bland-Altman test. A paired t-test was also applied. A difference of up to ±0.5 INR unit between the two systems was considered clinically acceptable.

RESULTS

The mean CoaguChek-INR was 2.94 ± 1.41 and venous laboratory INR was 2.43±0.86, with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.95. Categorizing INR values in ranges (INR <2, INR 2-3, INR 3-4, and INR >4), we found that the INR >4 group presented a lower correlation (r = 0.64) compared to the other ranges (p < 0.05). Although both methods were highly correlated, CoaguChek XS showed higher values than the venous laboratory INR, with an increased average of 0.42 ± 0.54. Therefore, we proposed a simple linear regression model to predict the venous laboratory INR values, using results obtained from CoaguChek XS. A difference ≤0.5 INR unit between the two systems was observed in 57.4% of patients, and the aPL profile did not influence the results.

CONCLUSION

Although CoaguChek XS and venous laboratory INR demonstrated a good linear correlation in the group of INR ≤4, extra caution should be taken in APS patients, since a reasonable proportion of patients can present differences in INR results that are not acceptable. We do not recommend routine POC in APS patients.

Role of POC INR in the early stage of diagnosis of coagulopathy

Background

Acute bleeding requires fast and targeted therapy. Therefore, knowledge of the patient's potential to form a clot is crucial. Point-of-care testing (POCT) provides fast and reliable information on coagulation. Structural circumstances, such as person-bound sample transport, can prolong the reporting of the results. The aim of the present study was to investigate the diagnostic quality and accuracy between POCT INR diagnostics and standard laboratory analysis (SLA) as well as the time advantage between a pneumatic tube and a personal-based transport system.

Methods

Two groups of haemorrhagic patients (EG: emergency department; OG: delivery room; each n = 12) were examined in the context of bleeding emergencies using POCT and SLA. Samples were transported via a pneumatic tube system or by a personal transport service.

Results

INR results between POCT and SLA showed a high and significant correlation (EG: p < 0.001; OG: p < 0.001). POCT results were reported significantly more quickly (EG: 1.1 vs. 39.6 min; OG: 2.0 vs. 75.0 min; p < 0.001) and required less time for analysis (EG: 0.3 vs. 24.0 min; OG: 0.5 vs. 45.0 min; p < 0.001) compared to SLA. The time for transportation with the pneumatic tube was significantly shorter (8.0 vs. 18.5 min; p < 0.001) than with the personal-based transport system.

Conclusion

The results of the present study suggest that POCT may be a suitable method for the emergency diagnosis and may be used as prognostic diagnostic elements in haemotherapy algorithms to initiate targeted haemotherapy at an early point in time.

Performance evaluation of coaguchek pro II in comparison with coaguchek XS plus and sta-r Max using a sta-neoplastine CI plus

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the analytical performance of CoaguChek Pro II (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany), a new point-of-care device measuring the international normalized ratio (INR) values, in comparison with CoaguChek XS Plus (Roche Diagnostics GmbH) and STA-R Max using STA-Neoplastine CI Plus (Diagnostica Stago SAS, Asnières-sur-Seine, France).

METHODS

The precision of Pro II was analyzed, according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines (CLSI POCT14-A2 and EP15-A3). In 105 clinical samples, the Pro II INR values were compared with those of XS Plus and STA-R Max using STA-Neoplastine CI Plus (CLSI EP09-A3 and EP35). We also compared the Pro II INR values between capillary blood (CB) and venous blood (VB; CLSI EP35).

RESULTS

The precision of Pro II was acceptable (within-run and between-run CV%: 2.71% and 3.28% at normal level; 1.52% and 4.47% at abnormal level, respectively). The Pro II INR values showed very high correlation and almost perfect agreement with those of XS Plus and STA-R Max using STA-Neoplastine CI Plus (r = .97 and κ = .94; r = .95 and κ = .91). The mean difference between Pro II and STA-R Max using STA-Neoplastine CI Plus increased as INR values increased, with 60% of samples showing differences >0.5 in the supratherapeutic range. The Pro II INR values showed very high correlation between CB and VB (r = .98).

CONCLUSION

Pro II INR values are accurate and reliable using both CB and VB; however, they should be confirmed by laboratory analyzers in the supratherapeutic range.

Reliability of the portable coagulometer qLabs to accurately measure the activated thromboplastin time and international normalized ratio: a prospective study in critically ill patients

: The current prospective study was aimed at investigating whether a portable coagulometer (qLabs) can be used to reliably monitor activated thromboplastin time (aPTT) and international normalized ratio (INR) in critically ill patients, as compared with standard central laboratory measurement. Both precision and accuracy of INR and aPTT measured by qLabs were assessed in this observational study by finger prick group (N = 30 patients) and blood droplet group from central venous catheter drawn (N = 60). For accuracy, clinical agreement percentage was ±0.3 for INR and ±10 s for aPTT. Precision of INR measurement in qLabs showed excellent intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC > 90%). Precision of aPTT measurement in qLabs was less acceptable for both finger prick [ICC: 0.70; Bland-Altman plot: 2.2 s (-19.8, 24.2)] and blood droplet [ICC: 0.50; Bland-Altman plot: 0.4 s (-70.9, 71.8)] groups. Accuracy of qLabs was acceptable for INR assessment (clinical agreement 90 and 81%, for finger prick and blood droplet groups, respectively), but not for aPTT (clinical agreement 55 and 68%, respectively). Accuracy of finger prick and blood droplet measurements in qLabs was better for INR and aPTT values near-to-normal (1.2 and 37 s, respectively). INR values from qLabs were consistent with the 'gold standard'. qLabs measurement is only reliable for aPTT values near-to-normal.

Use of a capillary specimen in the laboratory to verify a point-of-care international normalized ratio: Avoidance of a venipuncture in a pediatric setting

INTRODUCTION

Point-of-care (POC) international normalized ratio (INR) values above an institutional cutoff are confirmed in the laboratory using a gold standard venous specimen. This can be problematic in a pediatric setting.

METHOD

In this study, 449 consecutive POC INR results were compared to an INR performed in the laboratory on a capillary citrate specimen collected from the same finger-stick. The results were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean INR values from the CoaguChek XS and laboratory were 2.85 ± 1.19 and 2.63 ± 1.11, respectively. There was a good correlation between the methods with r = 0.97. Bland-Altman analysis indicated a bias of 0.22 favoring the CoaguChek XS, with 95% limits of agreement -0.29 to 0.72. Passing and Bablok method comparison resulted in a slope of 0.91 (y = 0.91x + 0.02). An INR of ≤0.5 was found between the methods in 89% of cases and 84% agreement was noted (κ = 0.69).

CONCLUSION

Comparing the capillary INR laboratory results to studies involving a venous specimen, the capillary specimen performed with equivalence. Thus, a capillary citrate specimen can be collected from the same finger-stick used to perform the POC INR for confirmation in the laboratory. This avoids the trauma of a venous collection in such a situation.

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.

Correlation Between Home INR and Core Laboratory INR in Patients Supported with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices

It has been well established that patient self-testing (PST) of international normalized ratio (INR) using home monitoring devices increases the average therapeutic time and patient satisfaction. Long-term anticoagulation therapy with warfarin is used in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) to minimize the occurrence of thromboembolic events; however, PST devices have never been tested in patients with CF-LVADs. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the PST device Alere INRatio 2 in patients supported with CF-LVADs. A correlation study was performed in 50 patients with CF-LVAD who were on stable warfarin therapy for a minimum of 3 weeks. Simultaneous INR values were determined from capillary whole blood samples using the Alere PST device and venous blood samples processed in the core laboratory at Columbia University Medical Center. There was a moderate correlation between the venous and the capillary INR values with a correlation coefficient of 0.83. The median difference between the methods was 0.39, with 44 of 50 patients recording higher INRs with Alere. Results remained unchanged after adjusting for use of amiodarone, abnormal hematocrit and liver enzymes, creatinine, and thyroid-stimulating hormone. Point of care testing with Alere correlates moderately well but consistently overestimates INR when compared with conventional laboratory testing in patients with CF-LVAD.

Agreement between Coaguchek XS and STA-R Evolution (Hepato Quick) INR results depends on the level of INR

INTRODUCTION

Introducing point-of-care (POC) INR measurement to monitor anticoagulant therapy may be beneficial for both patients and anticoagulation clinics. However, agreement between POC and laboratory INR results is still unclear, especially at sub- and supratherapeutic levels. Therefore we investigated the analytical and clinical agreement between POC INR results of the Coaguchek XS and laboratory INR results of the STA-R Evolution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Paired POC and laboratory INR results were obtained and analyzed in 3257 patients aged 18-104 years between August 2008 and March 2014.

RESULTS

Mean difference between POC and laboratory results ranged from -0.18 (95%CI -0.20;-0.16) INR point for POC results 2.0-3.0, up to 1.14 (95%CI 0.87;1.42) INR point for POC results 7.1-8.0. In the therapeutic range (POC INR 2.0-4.0), mean difference between POC and laboratory results was -0.13 (95%CI -0.15;-0.12) INR point. At subtherapeutic (POC INR <2.0) and supratherapeutic (POC INR >4.0) INR levels, mean differences were -0.13 (95%CI -0.15;-0.11) and 0.72 (95%CI 0.63;0.80) INR point, respectively. Clinical agreement regarding therapeutic range was present in 92.0% (POC within range), 67.7% (POC below range) and 87.6% (POC above range) of the paired measurements. We observed ≥15% INR difference between the POC and laboratory result in 14.8% (POC INR 2.0-4.0), 17.0% (POC INR<2.0) and 47.8% (POC INR >4.0) of the paired measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

POC and laboratory INR results were strongly correlated within the therapeutic range and differences between results become larger with increasing INR. Clinical disagreement between laboratory and POC results occurs often at both sub- and supratherapeutic INR levels.

Concept of a point of care test to detect new oral anticoagulants in urine samples

New oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are approved for several indications for prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism and for prevention of embolism in atrial fibrillation at fixed daily doses without need of laboratory guided dose adjustment. Due to their low molecular weight of about 500 to 600 Dalton and their hydrophilicity free anticoagulant is excreted immediately through glomerular filtration into the urine. Impairment of renal function may increase the plasma concentration of the anticoagulants and lowered creatinine clearance is a declared contraindication. In contrast to the initial aim of development the anticoagulant effect is required to be determined in special clinical situations. Several specific and non-specific assays using plasma samples are currently undergoing standardization. As all NOACs are excreted into the urine, specific assays were developed for this matrix to determine them quantitatively of qualitatively. Urine samples can be easily and repetitively obtained avoiding problems and risks associated with blood sampling. The qualitative assay can be performed as a point of care test (POC) also by the patient by judging the different colours for the absence or presence of the drugs with the naked eye. The test is rapid (results available within 15 min), sensitive, specific and accurate and does not require a purified NOAC as control. The tests may be a tool for clinicians who need to know for treatment decisions if a NOAC is on board or not. As the tests are specific for oral direct thrombin inhibitors and for oral direct factor Xa inhibitors, the indication does not interfere with other qualitative POC test in development using clotting systems. The test may be indicated for patients at acute hospitalization, before surgery or central nervous system puncture anaesthesia, if fibrinolytic therapy is indicated, acute deterioration of renal function, and for control of adherence to therapy.