COMPARISON OF INTERNATIONAL NORMALIZED RATIO (INR) BETWEEN POINT OF CARE DEVICE COAGUCHEK® XS VERSUS STANDARD LABORATORY INSTRUMENT AMONG PATIENTS RECEIVING WARFARIN THERAPY IN A NORTHEAST STATE OF PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

Muhammad Irfan Abdul Aziz, Hafizuddin Awang
{"title":"COMPARISON OF INTERNATIONAL NORMALIZED RATIO (INR) BETWEEN POINT OF CARE DEVICE COAGUCHEK® XS VERSUS STANDARD LABORATORY INSTRUMENT AMONG PATIENTS RECEIVING WARFARIN THERAPY IN A NORTHEAST STATE OF PENINSULAR MALAYSIA","authors":"Muhammad Irfan Abdul Aziz, Hafizuddin Awang","doi":"10.32827/ijphcs.6.2.215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Warfarin is widely used and cost-effective for various indications. However, the narrow therapeutic index of warfarin requires frequent International Normalized Ratio (INR) monitoring. The purpose of this study was to compare the mean differences, to examine the correlation and agreement between the two methods of venipuncture using laboratory assay and by finger prick using Point of Care (POC) device (CoaguChek® XS). Materials and Methods: A cross sectional study was done in warfarin Medication Therapeutic Adherence Clinic (MTAC), Kuala Krai Hospital. Convenient sampling was used to recruit patients from August until December 2016. The INR results from CoaguChek® XS were compared with the results from standard laboratory assay. Descriptive statistics, paired t-test, Pearson's correlation and Bland-Altman plot were used for data analysis. Result: A total of 52 patients with 84 paired samples were collected in this study. The mean INR values obtained from CoaguChek® XS was significantly different from standard laboratory method (p<0.001). However, there was a strong positive correlation between these two methods (r=0.941, p<0.001). Besides, Bland-Altman plot demonstrated a good agreement between both methods especially when INR values less than 3.5. Conclusion: Despite the mean differences of INR values between these two methods was statistically significant, but it was clinically not significant (mean difference = 0.32). There was a strong correlation and good agreement between INR values obtained from these two methods. These findings may help clinicians in improving the quality of INR monitoring for patients on warfarin therapy. Keywords: Point of Care device, standard laboratory method, INR, warfarin.","PeriodicalId":14315,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32827/ijphcs.6.2.215","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Warfarin is widely used and cost-effective for various indications. However, the narrow therapeutic index of warfarin requires frequent International Normalized Ratio (INR) monitoring. The purpose of this study was to compare the mean differences, to examine the correlation and agreement between the two methods of venipuncture using laboratory assay and by finger prick using Point of Care (POC) device (CoaguChek® XS). Materials and Methods: A cross sectional study was done in warfarin Medication Therapeutic Adherence Clinic (MTAC), Kuala Krai Hospital. Convenient sampling was used to recruit patients from August until December 2016. The INR results from CoaguChek® XS were compared with the results from standard laboratory assay. Descriptive statistics, paired t-test, Pearson's correlation and Bland-Altman plot were used for data analysis. Result: A total of 52 patients with 84 paired samples were collected in this study. The mean INR values obtained from CoaguChek® XS was significantly different from standard laboratory method (p<0.001). However, there was a strong positive correlation between these two methods (r=0.941, p<0.001). Besides, Bland-Altman plot demonstrated a good agreement between both methods especially when INR values less than 3.5. Conclusion: Despite the mean differences of INR values between these two methods was statistically significant, but it was clinically not significant (mean difference = 0.32). There was a strong correlation and good agreement between INR values obtained from these two methods. These findings may help clinicians in improving the quality of INR monitoring for patients on warfarin therapy. Keywords: Point of Care device, standard laboratory method, INR, warfarin.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在马来西亚半岛东北部州接受华法林治疗的患者中,护理点设备coaguchek®xs与标准实验室仪器之间的国际标准化比率(inr)的比较
背景:华法林广泛应用于各种适应症,具有成本效益。然而,华法林治疗指数窄,需要频繁监测国际标准化比值(INR)。本研究的目的是比较两种方法的平均差异,检验实验室静脉穿刺法和指刺穿刺法(CoaguChek®XS)之间的相关性和一致性。材料和方法:在吉隆坡医院华法林药物治疗依从性诊所(MTAC)进行了一项横断面研究。2016年8月至12月采用方便抽样方法招募患者。将CoaguChek®XS的INR结果与标准实验室检测结果进行比较。数据分析采用描述性统计、配对t检验、Pearson相关和Bland-Altman图。结果:本研究共收集52例患者,84例配对样本。CoaguChek®XS获得的平均INR值与标准实验室方法有显著差异(p<0.001)。然而,两种方法之间存在很强的正相关(r=0.941, p<0.001)。此外,Bland-Altman图显示了两种方法之间的良好一致性,特别是当INR值小于3.5时。结论:两种方法的INR值虽有统计学差异,但临床差异无统计学意义(平均差异= 0.32)。这两种方法得到的INR值具有很强的相关性和良好的一致性。这些发现可能有助于临床医生提高华法林治疗患者INR监测的质量。关键词:护理点装置,标准实验室方法,INR,华法林。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Factors Associated with the Incidence of COVID-19: A Case Control Study in Tasikmalaya, Indonesia Proficiency, Psychological Wellbeing, and Coping of the College Freshmen of the University of Nueva Caceres Potential of Harum Manis Mango (Mangifera Indica L.) Seed Extract for Nosocomial Infections Stress and Burnout among Medical Workers in Indonesia: A Study during COVID-19 Pandemic Artificial Intelligence and Mental Health Issues: A Narrative Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1