2021, Cilt 19, Sayı 2, Sayfa(lar) 145-152 |
|
Comparison of Point of Care INR Testing to Routine Coagulometric Method |
Gülçin Erdal Şahingöz1, Nilgün Işıksaçan2, Murat Koşer3 |
1SBÜ Bakırköy Dr.Sadi Konuk Eğitim Ve Araştırma Hastanesi, İç Hastalıkları, İstanbul, Türkiye 2SBÜ Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Tıbbı Biyokimya, Istanbul, Türkiye 3Silivri Department of Correction State Hospital, Tıbbı Biyokimya, Istanbul, Türkiye |
Keywords: point-of-care test; INR; oral anticoagulant |
|
Aim: Point Of Care (POC) tests are quick tests that shorten the treatment period and are portable
devices, which are easy to use for non-laboratory personnel. In this study we aimed to compare the
results of INR (International Normalized Ratio) that were studied with POC testing using fingertip
capillary blood and studied with coagulometric method using simultaneous venous blood in patients
receiving anticoagulants.
Materials and methods: Two hundred and fifty outpatients (129 women and 121 men) using oral
anticoagulant (OAC) drugs or monitoring for INR during preoperative preparation were included in this
study. One hundred and three patients were using vitamin K antagonists (VKA) (%41,2). Approximately
10 μl of capillary blood collected from the fingertips of the patients were studied directly on the point of
care test device (hemosense-inverness medical®), using electrochemical method. For the
coagulometric method, approximately 2 ml blood samples were taken into a vacutainer tube containing
sodium citrate. After centrifugation of the samples, tissue thromboplastin (TriniClot PT Excel S) was
added, Prothrombin Time (PT) and INR analysis were performed with Coag A-MTX II-Trinity Biotech
device. Daily controls of the device were performed before the study and samples were studied after
obtaining the results in the expected range.
Results: INR measurements of venous and capillary blood samples of 250 patients were performed
concurrently. The results were compared by linear regression analysis and a high correlation was found
between the two methods (r=0.878). There were no significant difference between the genders. In the
study, there was a good correlation in those with INR values below 2, and a high correlation in those
with 2 and above.
Conlusion: The POC method is a promising inexpensive method to meet the needs of clinicians in
terms of regulating the treatment of patients requiring immediate outcomes and rapidly assessing the
risk of bleeding, when a quality control program is implemented in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations. |
Top
Abstract
|
|
|