Point-of-care (POC) versus central laboratory instrumentation for monitoring oral anticoagulation

Abstract

Point-of-care (POC) instruments employing fingerstick whole blood to monitor patients treated with warfarin are a popular alternative to complex, central laboratory coagulation analyzers utilizing citrated plasma derived from venipuncture. We investigated the accuracy of two widely utilized POC instruments for oral anticoagulation monitoring compared with a central laboratory instrument. Instrument-to-instrument variation differed for the two POC instruments, which correlated with the central laboratory instrument, but exhibited positive bias of 0.24-0.35 INR units. Positive bias increased as the INR values increased. We conclude that clinicians should exercise caution when interpreting results generated by POC monitors, particularly at high INR values. A high POC measurement of INR does not necessarily warrant decreasing the warfarin dose. Instead, a predefined cut-off range for high INR values generated by POC instruments should mandate confirmatory testing with central laboratory instrumentation.

Keywords

international normalized ratio (INR)prothrombin time (PT)warfarin

References

Zimmerman CR. The role of point-of-care anticoagulation monitoring in arterial and venous thromboembolic disorders. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2000; 9: 187-198.

Van den Besselaar AMHP , Meeuwisse-Braun J , Schaefer-van Mansfeld H et al. A comparison between capillary and venous blood international normalized ratio determinations in a portable prothrombin time device. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2000; 11: 559-562.

Bland JM , Altman DG. Statistical method for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; i: 307-310.

Bland JM , Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 135-160.

Gosselin R , Owings JT , White RH et al. A comparison of point-of-care instruments designed for monitoring oral anticoagulation with standard laboratory methods. Thromb Haemost 2000; 83: 698-703.

Van den Besselar AMHP. A comparison of INRs determined with a whole blood prothrombin time device and two international reference preparations for thromboplastin. Thromb Haemost 2000; 84: 410-412.

Kemme MJB , Faaij RA , Schoemaker RC et al. Disagreement between bedside and laboratory activated partial thromboplastin time and international normalized ratio for various novel anticoagulants. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2001; 12: 583-591.

Grasso-Correnti N , Goldszer RC , Goldhaber SZ. The critical pathways of an anticoagulation service. Critical Pathways in Cardiology 2003; 2: 41-45.

Palareti G , Manotti C , D’Angelo A et al. Thrombotic events during oral anticoagulant treatment: results of the inception-cohort, prospective, collaborative ISCOAT Study. ISCOAT study group (Italian Study on Complications of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy). Thromb Haemost 1997; 78: 1438-1443.

10.

Poller L , Keown M , Chauhan N et al. European concerted action on anticoagulation (ECAA): an assessment of a method for ISI calibration of two whole blood point-of-care PT monitor systems based on lyophilized plasmas using whole blood equivalent PT. J Thromb Haemost 2002; 1: 766-772.

11.

Poller L , Keown M , Chauhan N et al. European concerted action on anticoagulation: comparison of fresh plasma and whole blood multicentre ISI calibrations of CoaguChek Mini and TAS PT-NC whole blood prothrombin time point-of-care monitors. Thromb Haemost 2002; 87: 859-866.