This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1076029608315167v1 1076029608315167v2    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Google Scholar Articles by Lazo-Langner, A. Articles by Piedras, J. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lazo-Langner, A. Articles by Piedras, J. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Intrahospital Correlation of the International Normalized Ratio

London Health Sciences Centre

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: alazo{at}uwo.ca.

	Abstract

Background. Monitoring of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) is usually accomplished by measuring prothrombin time and the international normalized ratio (INR). However, thromboplastins have different responsiveness and sensitivity to vitamin K–dependent coagulation factors depletion. Several studies have shown INR variation when low sensitive thromboplastins are used. This study compared INR variability between two laboratories using highly sensitive thromboplastins. Methods. A total of 237 plasmas were tested, half of them from patients under OAT. Samples were tested simultaneously in two laboratories: in laboratory A, a Behring Coagulation Timer instrument and a human recombinant thromboplastin (Innovin, Dade Behring) (ISI 1.01) were used. In laboratory B, a Thrombolyzer Compact (Behnk Elektronik) and a rabbit brain thromboplastin (Simplastin Excel S, Organon Teknika) with an ISI of 1.30 were used. Statistical analysis was carried out according to the method of Bland and Altman. Results. Even though high correlation coefficients were obtained when comparing both laboratories, Bland–Altman analysis showed a variation of INR between laboratories ranging from -0.77 to +1.07. After logarithmic transformation of data, these values yielded a variation of the INR either 25% below or 44% above. Conclusions. These results are clearly inadequate for clinical use because such a variation would most probably induce the clinician to make a change in warfarin dose. Standardization of instruments, reagents, and controls is warranted to decrease this variation.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?