A randomized trial comparing INR monitoring devices in patients with anticoagulation self-management: evaluation of a novel error-grid approach
Background In addition to the metrological quality of international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring devices used in patients’ self-management of long-term anticoagulation, the effectiveness of self-monitoring with such devices has to be evaluated under real-life conditions with a focus on clinical...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis 2008-08, Vol.26 (1), p.22-30 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background
In addition to the metrological quality of international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring devices used in patients’ self-management of long-term anticoagulation, the effectiveness of self-monitoring with such devices has to be evaluated under real-life conditions with a focus on clinical implications. An approach to evaluate the clinical significance of inaccuracies is the error-grid analysis as already established in self-monitoring of blood glucose. Two anticoagulation monitors were compared in a real-life setting and a novel error-grid instrument for oral anticoagulation has been evaluated.
Methods
In a randomized crossover study 16 patients performed self-management of anticoagulation using the INRatio
®
and the CoaguChek S
®
system. Main outcome measures were clinically relevant INR differences according to established criteria and to the error-grid approach.
Results
A lower rate of clinically relevant disagreements according to Anderson’s criteria was found with CoaguChek S
®
than with INRatio
®
without statistical significance (10.77% vs. 12.90%;
P
= 0.787). Using the error-grid we found principally consistent results: More measurement pairs with discrepancies of no or low clinical relevance were found with CoaguChek S
®
, whereas with INRatio
®
we found more differences with a moderate clinical relevance. A high rate of patients’ satisfaction with both of the point of care devices was found with only marginal differences.
Conclusions
A principal appropriateness of the investigated point-of-care devices to adequately monitor the INR is shown. The error-grid is useful for comparing monitoring methods with a focus on clinical relevance under real-life conditions beyond assessing the pure metrological quality, but we emphasize that additional trials using this instrument with larger patient populations are needed to detect differences in clinically relevant disagreements. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0929-5305 1573-742X |
DOI: | 10.1007/s11239-007-0070-4 |