Accuracy and Precision of the CoaguChek S versus Laboratory INRs in a Clinic

Abstract

Spanish

French

BACKGROUND:

The CoaguChek S is the next-generation coagulation monitor for measuring the international normalized ratio (INR) that replaces the CoaguChek device. Studies are lacking comparing the CoaguChek S with local laboratory INR assessment to ensure its accuracy and precision for monitoring patients on anticoagulation.

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate accuracy, precision, and technical ease-of-use of the CoaguChek S compared with laboratory measurements.

METHODS:

Accuracy was evaluated in 101 patients by parallel assessment of INRs (CoaguChek S and laboratory); precision was evaluated in 31 patients using duplicate INRs from CoaguChek S and laboratory and from liquid quality controls. Accuracy was determined using orthogonal regression, Bland—Altman plot, and clinical applicability (INRs discrepant in categorization of INR goal and resulting in different therapeutic decisions). Precision was examined by comparing mean difference ± SD between repeated INRs from CoaguChek S and laboratory, coefficient of variation (CV), and coefficient of repeatability (CR). The influence of low and elevated INRs on accuracy and precision was also examined. To assess ease-of-use of the monitor, the number of technical errors was recorded.

RESULTS:

The CoaguChek S significantly correlated to laboratory measurement (r = 0.93); 16.7% of INRs resulted in discrepant categorization and 24.5% would have required a different therapeutic plan. The CV and CR compared well between CoaguChek S and laboratory (6% vs. 4.9%; 0.455 vs. 0.346, respectively). When subgroups of INR values <4.0 and <3.0 were evaluated, the precision improved with both methods. Precision, based on liquid quality controls, was good (CV 4.6% = low-level; 3.3% = high-level). The CoaguChek S was found to have an error rate of 1.8%.

CONCLUSIONS:

The CoaguChek S is an accurate and precise alternative to laboratory assessment of the INR at values <4.0; it is an efficient device with a low likelihood of errors during testing.

Keywords

anticoagulation coagulation monitor international normalized ratio warfarin

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kapiotis

Quehenberger

Speiser

. Evaluation of the new method CoaguChek for the determination of prothrombin time from capillary blood: Comparison with Thrombotest on KC-1. Thromb Res 1995;77: 563–7.

Hirsh

Dalen

Anderson

Poller

Bussey

Ansell

Oral anticoagulants: Mechanism of action, clinical effectiveness, and optimal therapeutic range. Chest 2001;119:8S–21S.

Bussey

Chiquette

Bianco

Lowder-Bender

Kraynak

Linn

A statistical and clinical evaluation of fingerstick and routine laboratory prothrombin time measurements. Pharmacotherapy 1997;17: 861–6.

Reed

Rickman

. Accuracy of international normalized ratio determined by portable whole-blood coagulation monitor versus a central laboratory. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999;56: 1619–23.

Altman

Bland

. Measurement in medicine: The analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician 1983;32: 307–17.

Chapman

Stephens

Hamann

Bailey

Dorko

. Accuracy, clinical correlation, and patient acceptance of two handheld prothrombin time monitoring devices in the ambulatory setting. Ann Pharmacother 1999;33: 775–80.

Gosselin

Owings

White

Hutchinson

Branch

Mahackian

A comparison of point-of-care instruments designed for monitoring oral anticoagulation with standard laboratory methods. Thromb Haemost 2000;83: 698–703.

Murray

Fitzmaurice

Allan

Hobbs

FDR

. A primary care evaluation of three near patient coagulometers. J Clin Pathol 1999;52: 842–5.

Kaatz

White

Hill

Mascha

Humphries

Becker

. Accuracy of laboratory and portable monitor international normalized ratio determinations: Comparison with a criterion standard. Arch Intern Med 1995;155: 1861–7.

10.

Douketis

Lane

Milne

Ginsberg

. Accuracy of a portable international normalization ratio monitor in outpatients receiving long-term oral anticoagulant therapy: Comparison with a laboratory reference standard using clinically relevant criteria for agreement. Thromb Res 1998;92: 11–7.

11.

Attermann

Kynde

Hasenkam

. Precision of patients' measurements of the international normalized ratio (INR) using a patient operated whole blood home coagulometer. Thromb Res 1998;92: 287–91.

12.

van den Besselaar

Breddin

Lutze

Parker-Williams

Taborski

Vogel

Multicenter evaluation of a new capillary blood prothrombin time monitoring system. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 1995;6: 726–32.

13.

Weibert

Sevilla

Donnelly

Rapaport

. The international normalized ratio (INR) for monitoring warfarin therapy: Reliability and relation to other monitoring methods. Ann Intern Med 1994;120: 552–8.

14.

Hobbs

Fitzmaurice

Murray

Holder

Rose

Roper

. Is the international normalised ratio (INR) reliable? A trial of comparative measurements in hospital laboratory and primary care settings. J Clin Pathol 1999;52: 494–7.

15.

Duncan

Casey

Duncan

Lloyd

. Effect of concentration of trisodium citrate anticoagulant on calculation of the international normalised ratio and the international sensitivity index of thromboplastin. Thromb Haemost 1994;72: 84–8.

16.

Taberner

Poller

Thomson

Darby

. Effect of international sensitivity index (ISI) of thromboplastins on precision of international normalized ratio (INR). J Clin Pathol 1989;42: 92–6.

17.

Hirsh

Poller

. The international normalized ratio: A guide to understanding and correcting its problems. Arch Intern Med 1994;154: 282–8.