Comparison between international normalized ratio using a portable device and conventional methodology

Arq Bras Cardiol. 2007 Jan;88(1):31-4. doi: 10.1590/s0066-782x2007000100005.
[Article in English, Portuguese]

Abstract

Objective: to compare the international normalized ratio (INR) measured by a point-of-care (POC) testing device with that measured by the conventional method in patients undergoing anticoagulation therapy with warfarin sodium.

Methods: The INR of 383 warfarin-treated patients (mean age: 56.5 years; 207 female) was measured in capillary blood using the Hemochron Jr. device and compared with that of venous plasma samples determined by the conventional method performed in a Coag-A-Mate analyzer. Results were evaluated globally and for the following subgroups: INR < 2.0, from 2.0 to 3.5, and > 3.5.

Results: Using both methods, the comparison between INR values yielded a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.86. However, mean differences in INR in both tests, considering the three subgroups, proved to be statistically significant (p <0.001): 0.14 +/- 0.21 (INR< 2.0); 0.54 +/- 0.31 (2.0 < or = INR < or = 3.5), and 1.64 +/- 1.10 (INR> 3.5). Paired Students t-test analysis revealed a p value < 0.001 for the three subgroups studied.

Conclusion: The use of point-of-care testing for monitoring oral anticoagulation has some limitations. Anticoagulation intensity was underestimated by this method in the three subgroups studied.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Anticoagulants / therapeutic use*
  • Blood Coagulation / drug effects*
  • Female
  • Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight / therapeutic use*
  • Humans
  • International Normalized Ratio / methods*
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Prothrombin Time
  • Reference Values
  • Reproducibility of Results

Substances

  • Anticoagulants
  • Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight