Accuracy of laboratory and portable monitor international normalized ratio determinations: Comparison with a criterion standard

S. S. Kaatz, Richard H White, J. Hill, E. Mascha, J. E. Humphries, D. M. Becker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

100 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Portable instruments that measure the prothrombin time and automatically calculate the international normalized ratio (INR) with the use of a drop of whole blood have simplified the treatment of patients who are receiving warfarin therapy. The accuracy of these portable monitors has never been determined by comparing INR results with a criterion (gold) standard INR determination. Methods: Duplicate whole-blood INR determinations were made with two commercially available portable INR monitors. Duplicate frozen- plasma samples were measured with four different thromboplastin reagents, each with a different international sensitivity index. The criterion standard INR was determined by using an international reference thromboplastin and the manual tilt-tube technique. Agreement was evaluated by determining how accurately laboratory and monitor INR determinations matched criterion standard values in designating a sample to be within or outside of currently recommended INR target ranges. Results: Two of the laboratory methods, which used relatively sensitive thromboplastins, showed close agreement with the criterion standard, whereas two laboratory methods that used less sensitive thromboplastin reagents showed poor agreement. Both of the portable monitors fell between these extremes. The two best laboratory methods were significantly better (P<.003) than both monitors, which in turn were better (P<.003) than the remaining two laboratories. Conclusions: There is large interlaboratory variation in the accuracy of INR determinations. Laboratory methods that used insensitive (high international sensitivity index) thromboplastins performed poorly. Accuracy of monitor measurements appears satisfactory.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1861-1867
Number of pages7
JournalArchives of Internal Medicine
Volume155
Issue number17
StatePublished - 1995

Fingerprint

International Normalized Ratio
Thromboplastin
Prothrombin Time
Warfarin
Gold

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Accuracy of laboratory and portable monitor international normalized ratio determinations : Comparison with a criterion standard. / Kaatz, S. S.; White, Richard H; Hill, J.; Mascha, E.; Humphries, J. E.; Becker, D. M.

In: Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 155, No. 17, 1995, p. 1861-1867.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kaatz, S. S. ; White, Richard H ; Hill, J. ; Mascha, E. ; Humphries, J. E. ; Becker, D. M. / Accuracy of laboratory and portable monitor international normalized ratio determinations : Comparison with a criterion standard. In: Archives of Internal Medicine. 1995 ; Vol. 155, No. 17. pp. 1861-1867.
@article{10e0b0821fcf4501841f04b98a983ef6,
title = "Accuracy of laboratory and portable monitor international normalized ratio determinations: Comparison with a criterion standard",
abstract = "Background: Portable instruments that measure the prothrombin time and automatically calculate the international normalized ratio (INR) with the use of a drop of whole blood have simplified the treatment of patients who are receiving warfarin therapy. The accuracy of these portable monitors has never been determined by comparing INR results with a criterion (gold) standard INR determination. Methods: Duplicate whole-blood INR determinations were made with two commercially available portable INR monitors. Duplicate frozen- plasma samples were measured with four different thromboplastin reagents, each with a different international sensitivity index. The criterion standard INR was determined by using an international reference thromboplastin and the manual tilt-tube technique. Agreement was evaluated by determining how accurately laboratory and monitor INR determinations matched criterion standard values in designating a sample to be within or outside of currently recommended INR target ranges. Results: Two of the laboratory methods, which used relatively sensitive thromboplastins, showed close agreement with the criterion standard, whereas two laboratory methods that used less sensitive thromboplastin reagents showed poor agreement. Both of the portable monitors fell between these extremes. The two best laboratory methods were significantly better (P<.003) than both monitors, which in turn were better (P<.003) than the remaining two laboratories. Conclusions: There is large interlaboratory variation in the accuracy of INR determinations. Laboratory methods that used insensitive (high international sensitivity index) thromboplastins performed poorly. Accuracy of monitor measurements appears satisfactory.",
author = "Kaatz, {S. S.} and White, {Richard H} and J. Hill and E. Mascha and Humphries, {J. E.} and Becker, {D. M.}",
year = "1995",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "155",
pages = "1861--1867",
journal = "JAMA Internal Medicine",
issn = "2168-6106",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "17",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy of laboratory and portable monitor international normalized ratio determinations

T2 - Comparison with a criterion standard

AU - Kaatz, S. S.

AU - White, Richard H

AU - Hill, J.

AU - Mascha, E.

AU - Humphries, J. E.

AU - Becker, D. M.

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - Background: Portable instruments that measure the prothrombin time and automatically calculate the international normalized ratio (INR) with the use of a drop of whole blood have simplified the treatment of patients who are receiving warfarin therapy. The accuracy of these portable monitors has never been determined by comparing INR results with a criterion (gold) standard INR determination. Methods: Duplicate whole-blood INR determinations were made with two commercially available portable INR monitors. Duplicate frozen- plasma samples were measured with four different thromboplastin reagents, each with a different international sensitivity index. The criterion standard INR was determined by using an international reference thromboplastin and the manual tilt-tube technique. Agreement was evaluated by determining how accurately laboratory and monitor INR determinations matched criterion standard values in designating a sample to be within or outside of currently recommended INR target ranges. Results: Two of the laboratory methods, which used relatively sensitive thromboplastins, showed close agreement with the criterion standard, whereas two laboratory methods that used less sensitive thromboplastin reagents showed poor agreement. Both of the portable monitors fell between these extremes. The two best laboratory methods were significantly better (P<.003) than both monitors, which in turn were better (P<.003) than the remaining two laboratories. Conclusions: There is large interlaboratory variation in the accuracy of INR determinations. Laboratory methods that used insensitive (high international sensitivity index) thromboplastins performed poorly. Accuracy of monitor measurements appears satisfactory.

AB - Background: Portable instruments that measure the prothrombin time and automatically calculate the international normalized ratio (INR) with the use of a drop of whole blood have simplified the treatment of patients who are receiving warfarin therapy. The accuracy of these portable monitors has never been determined by comparing INR results with a criterion (gold) standard INR determination. Methods: Duplicate whole-blood INR determinations were made with two commercially available portable INR monitors. Duplicate frozen- plasma samples were measured with four different thromboplastin reagents, each with a different international sensitivity index. The criterion standard INR was determined by using an international reference thromboplastin and the manual tilt-tube technique. Agreement was evaluated by determining how accurately laboratory and monitor INR determinations matched criterion standard values in designating a sample to be within or outside of currently recommended INR target ranges. Results: Two of the laboratory methods, which used relatively sensitive thromboplastins, showed close agreement with the criterion standard, whereas two laboratory methods that used less sensitive thromboplastin reagents showed poor agreement. Both of the portable monitors fell between these extremes. The two best laboratory methods were significantly better (P<.003) than both monitors, which in turn were better (P<.003) than the remaining two laboratories. Conclusions: There is large interlaboratory variation in the accuracy of INR determinations. Laboratory methods that used insensitive (high international sensitivity index) thromboplastins performed poorly. Accuracy of monitor measurements appears satisfactory.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029114752&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029114752&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 7677552

AN - SCOPUS:0029114752

VL - 155

SP - 1861

EP - 1867

JO - JAMA Internal Medicine

JF - JAMA Internal Medicine

SN - 2168-6106

IS - 17

ER -