• Users Online: 232
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 25-30

Comparison of prothrombin time and international normalized ratio values using point-of-care system with a standardized laboratory method in patients on long-term oral anticoagulation – A prospective study


1 Department of Cardiology, Aayush Hospital, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India
2 Department of Pathology, Aayush Hospital, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Raghuram Palaparti
Department of Cardiology, Aayush Hospitals, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada - 520 008, Andhra Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCPC.JCPC_55_19

Rights and Permissions

Background: In our country, methods of prothrombin time (PT) and international normalized ratio (INR) testing have not been standardized across various centers. Often, we find disparity in INR values from different laboratories, posing a challenge to make an appropriate clinical decision. Objective: The objective of the study was to compare and correlate the PT/INR values using a point-of-care (POC) system with standardized laboratory (SL) testing and to evaluate the efficiency of the POC system in monitoring patients. Methods: We have prospectively compared PT/INR values between a commercially available POC, CoaguChek XS System, Roche, and SL testing in 205 patients and 353 samples from July 2017 to April 2018. Results: The overall strong correlation between POC PT/INR values and simultaneous standard laboratory values was noted. The overall coefficient of correlation among the two groups was 0.919 (P = 0.001) for INR values. In INR range of 2–3.5, the values correlated well with a coefficient of correlation, 0.756 (P = 0.001). In INR range <2, the values correlated with a coefficient of 0.98. The correlation was poor when the INR values were >4. Conclusions: In this comparison study, statistical analysis yielded a good correlation between POC PT/INR values and SL values in therapeutic and subtherapeutic range. POC testing is a good alternative to SL testing. If widely available, POC testing may enable patient self-testing and self-monitoring. In our experience, POC testing had added benefits in emergency settings. However, clinicians and laboratory professionals should be aware of the occasional disagreement between POC INR and standard laboratory INR values.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed362    
    Printed25    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded45    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal