Tuberc Respir Dis.  2008 Dec;65(6):471-475.

Utility of CoaguChek XS for Monitoring the Prothrombin Time

• Park R
• Kim YH
• Kwon KO
• Na J
• Won YS
• Sung KB
• Lee NH
• Choi TY
• Shin JW
• Shin HB
• Lee YW
• Lee YK

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In order to achieve a maintenance level and to prevent hemorrhagic complications, regular monitoring of the INR is mandatory for patients on oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT). A point-of-care instrument for INR monitoring is convenient for users, but the accuracy of the results has been controversial, and so this calls for exact evaluation of the point-of-care instrument that is used for INR monitoring.
METHODS
From Aug 2007 through Feb 2008, 85 patients on OAT among the all the patients who were admitted to Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital were involved in this study. Parallel measurements of the PT INR were performed using a CoaguChek-XS and, a CA-7000 laboratory reference instrument and the results were analyzed. In addition, the patients' clinical data, including the diagnosis and the frequency and interval of the INR measurements, were also analyzed.
RESULTS
Of the 85 patients, 25 were admitted more than once to undergo INR testing and the mean interval between testing was 8.6 weeks with 39% and 38% of the tests being less than INR 2 units with using the CoaguChek-XS and the reference method, respectively. The coefficients of variation of CoaguChek-XS were 4.50 and 2.45 for the high and low INR patients, respectively. An excellent correlation was found between the two methods with a R2 of 0.966 (p<0.001). Through Bland-Altman analysis, the mean INR difference between the two methods was 0.13 with the limit of agreement being -0.47 +0.72 with a 95% confidence interval. CoaguChek-XS was shown to overestimate the INR value for patients with an increasing INR, as compared to the reference method.
CONCLUSION
CoaguChek-XS demonstrated great precision and accuracy for patients on OAT when compared to the laboratory INR results. Accordingly, the instrument should help to monitor the INR in the patients on OAT.

Keyword

Prothrombin time; INR; CoaguChek-XS; Oral anticoagulant therapy

MeSH Terms

Avena
Humans
International Normalized Ratio
Organothiophosphorus Compounds
Prothrombin
Prothrombin Time
Organothiophosphorus Compounds
Prothrombin

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 INR (international normalized ratio) comparison between CoaguChek-XS and reference method (CA-7000) by linear-regression analysis.

• 

  Figure 2 Bland-Altman bias plot for CoaguChek-XS and reference method INR (international normalized ratio) values. Mean INR difference between two methods was 0.13. The limit of agreement was -0.47~+0.72.

Reference

1. Horstkotte D, Piper C, Wiemer M. Optimal frequency of patient monitoring and intensity of oral anticoagulation therapy in valvular heart disease. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 1998. 5 Suppl 1:19–24.

2. Palareti G, Leali N, Coccheri S, Poggi M, Manotti C, D'Angelo A, et al. Bleeding complications of oral anticoagulant treatment: an inception-cohort, prospective collaborative study (ISCOAT). Italian Study on Complications of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy. Lancet. 1996. 348:423–428.

3. Hentrich DP, Fritschi J, Muller PR, Wuillemin WA. INR comparison between the CoaguChek S and a standard laboratory method among patients with self-management of oral anticoagulation. Thromb Res. 2007. 119:489–495.

4. Khoschnewis S, Hannes FM, Tschopp M, Wuillemin WA. INR comparison between the CoaguChek Pro PT(N) and a standard laboratory method. Thromb Res. 2004. 113:327–332.

5. Jackson SL, Bereznicki LR, Peterson GM, Marsden KA, Jupe DM, Tegg E, et al. Accuracy, reproducibility and clinical utility of the CoaguChek S portable international normalized ratio monitor in an outpatient anticoagulation clinic. Clin Lab Haematol. 2004. 26:49–55.

6. Ansell J, Hirsh J, Poller L, Bussey H, Jacobson A, Hylek E. The pharmacology and management of the vitamin K antagonists: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest. 2004. 126:204S–233S.

7. Sawicki PT. A structured teaching and self-management program for patients receiving oral anticoagulation: a randomized controlled trial. Working Group for the Study of Patient Self-Management of Oral Anticoagulation. JAMA. 1999. 281:145–150.

8. Lee JH, Lee KS, Kim DS, Lee HS, Choi SI, Cho YG. Evaluation of CoaguChek-XS for measuring prothrombin time in patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulation therapy. Korean J Lab Med. 2007. 27:177–181.

9. Kim JW, Kim MH, Kim KH, Han J, Paik JH, Yu LH, et al. Comparison between the portable prothrombin time self monitor CoaguChek XS and a standard laboratory method, Sysmex CA-1500 for monitoring anticoagulant therapy of outpatients. Korean Circ J. 2007. 37:216–220.

10. Nam MH, Roh KH, Pak HN, Lee CK, Kim YH, Lee KN, et al. Evaluation of the Roche CoaguChek XS handheld coagulation analyzer in a cardiac outpatient clinic. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2008. 38:37–40.

11. Bereznicki LR, Jackson SL, Peterson GM, Jeffrey EC, Marsden KA, Jupe DM. Accuracy and clinical utility of the CoaguChek XS portable international normalised ratio monitor in a pilot study of warfarin home-monitoring. J Clin Pathol. 2007. 60:311–314.

12. Bauman ME, Black KL, Massicotte MP, Bauman ML, Kuhle S, Howlett-Clyne S, et al. Accuracy of the CoaguChek XS for point-of-care international normalized ratio (INR) measurement in children requiring warfarin. Thromb Haemost. 2008. 99:1097–1103.

13. Braun S, Watzke H, Hasenkam JM, Schwab M, Wolf T, Dovifat C, et al. Performance evaluation of the new CoaguChek XS system compared with the established CoaguChek system by patients experienced in INR-self management. Thromb Haemost. 2007. 97:310–314.

14. Loebstein R, Kurnik D, Lubetsky A, Ezra D, Halkin H. Potential dosing errors using portable prothrombin time monitoring devices. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2003. 14:479–483.

15. Taborski U, Braun SL, Völler H. Analytical performance of the new coagulation monitoring system INRatio for the determination of INR compared with the coagulation monitor Coaguchek S and an established laboratory method. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2004. 18:103–107.

16. Gardiner C, Williams K, Mackie IJ, Machin SJ, Cohen H. Patient self-testing is a reliable and acceptable alternative to laboratory INR monitoring. Br J Haematol. 2005. 128:242–247.