Accuracy and Precision of a Portable Anticoagulation Monitor in a Clinical Setting

American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Foundation Guide to Warfarin Therapy

“…Another Biotrack derivative (Coumatrak; DuPont) was accurate in an INR range of 2.0 to 3.0 but gave discrepant results at higher INR values. 129 In another study, the Ciba-Corning monitor underestimated the results when the INR was Ͼ4.0, but the error was overcome by using a revised ISI value to calculate the INR. 130 Several investigators [131][132][133] reported excellent correlations with reference plasma PT values when a second category of monitor (CoaguChek; Roche Diagnostics, Inc) was used.…”

Coagulation Assays

“…Of these, the ACT remains the most commonly used, reflecting, at least in part, the lack of rapid, readily available, inexpensive alternatives. Pointof-care INR monitoring is both feasible and practical 47 and is used by many specialized coagulation clinics to streamline care. Although there are concerns about discrepancies between INR results obtained by nearpatient testing and those measured in hospital laboratories, several investigators have reported that selfmanagement with point-of-care INR devices is safe for selected patients and results in the same quality of care provided by specialized anticoagulation clinics.…”

Atherothrombotic Disorders

“…[37][38][39] These methods are considered the standard of care during cardiopulmonary bypass and percutaneous coronary interventions, and they are rapidly gaining acceptance in ambulatory practices to expedite decision making and to avoid prolonged delays (and patient dissatisfaction) awaiting the results from central laboratories.…”