Point-of-care International Normalised Ratios: UK NEQAS experience demonstrates necessity for proficiency testing of three different monitors

Stephen Kitchen; Dianne P. Kitchen; Ian Jennings; Tim A. L. Woods; Isobel D. Walker; F. Eric Preston

doi:10.1160/TH04-01-0031

Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Thromb Haemost 2006; 96(05): 590-596
DOI: 10.1160/TH04-01-0031

Theme Issue Article

Schattauer GmbH

Point-of-care International Normalised Ratios: UK NEQAS experience demonstrates necessity for proficiency testing of three different monitors

Stephen Kitchen

¹UK NEQAS – Blood Coagulation, Sheffield, UK

,

Dianne P. Kitchen

¹UK NEQAS – Blood Coagulation, Sheffield, UK

,

Ian Jennings

¹UK NEQAS – Blood Coagulation, Sheffield, UK

,

Tim A. L. Woods

¹UK NEQAS – Blood Coagulation, Sheffield, UK

,

Isobel D. Walker

¹UK NEQAS – Blood Coagulation, Sheffield, UK

,

F. Eric Preston

¹UK NEQAS – Blood Coagulation, Sheffield, UK

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Summary

External quality assessment (EQA) or proficiency testing is widely considered to be necessary for International Normalised Ratio (INR) determinations performed in conventional laboratory settings. There is increasing use of near-patient-test (NPT) or point-of-care (POC) INR devices and it is not known whether EQA is also necessary for these monitors. We report here on six years experience of proficiency testing for POC monitors used by health care professionals. Three devices were used by >10 centres who participated in the programme, the CoaguChek (CUC), the CUC-S and the TAS or Rapidpoint Coag. Not all users of the same type of monitor obtained the same INR result when analysing the same plasma sample. For the three monitors the CV of results in different centres was 11–14%. The variation between results in different centres could relate to inappropriately handled proficiency testing material, inaccuracies in the calibration of the system by the manufacturer or deterioration during transport/storage of the test strips. In each survey 10–11% of centres using POC monitors obtained INR results which were >15% different from those in other centres using the same monitors. For hospital laboratories using conventional INR techniques this figure was 12%. The relationship between INR results obtained by users of the Rapidpoint Coag orTAS monitor and results obtained by conventional techniques was not constant over the period of study. During one period INRs with TAS were 13.7% greater than with conventional methods. For the remaining three time periods results were similar. Our data suggest that the variation between INR results determined with three POC monitors show similar variation to that observed in hospital laboratories using conventional methods. Based on our data we recommend that users of these POC monitors participate regularly in an independent external proficiency testing programme.

Keywords

INR - NPT/POC - proficiency testing

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Loeliger EA, Van den Besselaar AMHP, Broekmans AW. Intensity of oral anticoagulation in patients monitored with various thromboplastins. New Engl J Med 1983; 308: 1228-9.
2 Denson KWE. Thromboplastinsensitivity, precision, and other characteristics. Clin Lab Haem 1988; 10: 315-28.
3 Jackson CM, Esnouf MP, Lindahl TL. A critical evaluation of the prothrombin time for monitoring oral anticoagulant therapy. Pathophysiol Haemost Thromb 2003; 33: 43-51.
4 Horsti J. Has the Quick or the Owren prothrombin time method the advantage in harmonisation of the international sensitiviy index correction?. Clin Chem 2001; 47: 940-4.
5 Horsti J. The quick and Owren Prothrombin time methods for oral anticoagulant therapy do not agree well using the INR units. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2003; 63: 455-6.
6 Loeliger EA, Van den Besselaar AMHP, Lewis SM. Reliability and clinical impact for the normalisation of the prothrombin time. Thromb Haemost 1985; 53: 148-54.
7 Bussey HI, Force FW, Bianco TM. et al. Reliance on PT ratio causes significant error in anticoagulant therapy. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152: 278-82.
8 Hirsh J. Substandard monitoring of warfarin in North America : time for change. Arch Int Med 1992; 152: 257-8.
9 Eckman MH, Levine HJ, Pauker SG. Effect of laboratory uncertainty in the prothrombin time ratio on the results of oral anticoagulant therapy. N Eng J Med 1993; 329: 696-702.
10 Kitchen S, Jennings I, Woods TAL. et al. Two recombinant tissue factor reagents compared to conventional thromboplastins for determination of INR :A 33 laboratory collaborative study. Thromb Haemost 1996; 76: 372-6.
11 Tripodi A, Arbin AA, Chantarangkul V. et al. Are capillary whole blood monitors suitable for the control of oral anticoagulant therapy by the INR?. Thromb Haemost 1993; 70: 921-4.
12 Van den Besselaar AMHP, Breddin K, Lutze G. et al. Multicenter evaluation of a new capillary blood prothrombin time monitoring system. Blood Coag Fibrinol 1995; 06: 726-32.
13 Hasenkam JM, Kinose HH, Knudsen L. et al. Self management of oral anticoagulant therapy after heart valve replacement. Eur J Cardio-Thor Surg 1997; 11: 935-42.
14 Van Dijk-Wierda CA, van Halem-Visser R, van der Hoeff-van Halem. et al. The preparation of control assessment programs in oral anticoagulant control. Thromb Haemost 1978; 39: 210-4.
15 Lang H, Scheer B, Moritz B. et al. International Normalised ratio - proficiency tests by OQUASTRA for the prothrombin time. Hamostaseologie 1995; 15: 41-8.
16 Houbouyan LL, Goguel AF. Long-term French experience in INR standardisation by a procedure using plasma calibrants. Am J Clin Pathol 1997; 108: 83-9.
17 Brien WF, Crawford L, Wood DE. Discrepant results in INR testing. Thromb Haemost 1994; 72: 986-7.
18 Cunningham MT, Praestgaard J, Styer PE. et al. A method for proficiency testing of small peer groups in the College of American Pathologists Coagulation Surveys. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999; 123: 199-205.
19 England JM, Hyde K, Lewis SM. et al. Guidelines for near patient testing: Haematology. Clin Lab Haem 1995; 17: 301-10.
20 Medical Devices Agency device Bulletin MDA DB2002(03) March 2002, Medical Devices Agency of UK Department of Health, Hannibel House, Elephant and Castle, London, SE1 6TQ.
21 Jennings I, Kitchen S, Woods TAL. et al. EQA of near patient test instruments. Thromb Haemost 1997; (Suppl. 01) 704.
22 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical assessment. Lancet 1986; i: 307-10.
23 Marzinotto V, Mongale P, Chan A. et al. Capillary whole blood monitoring of Ooal anticoagulants in children in outpatient clinics and the home setting. Pediatr Cardiol 2000; 21: 347-52.
24 Poller L, Keown M, Chauhan N. et al. European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation. Use of plasma samples to derive International Sensitivity Index for whole-blood prothrombin time monitors. Clin Chem 2002; 48: 255-60.
25 Horsti J. Agreement of Owren and Quick prothrombin Times: Effect of citrate and calcium concentrations and International Sensitivity Index correction. Clin Chem 2001; 47: 940-4.
26 Kitchen S, Jennings I, Woods TAL. et al. Local calibration of INR improves between laboratory agreement: results from the UK NEQAS. Thromb Haemost 1999; 81: 60-5.
27 Van den Besselaar AMHP. A comparison of INRs determined with a whole blood prothrombin time device and two International Reference preparations for thromboplastin. Thromb Haemost 2000; 84: 410-2.
28 Poller L, Van den Besselaar AMHP, Jespersen J. et al. The effect of sample size on fresh plasma ISI determinations. Br J Haematol 1999; 105: 655-63.
29 Murray ET, Kitchen DP, Kitchen S. et al. Patient Self-management of oral anticoagulation and external quality assessment procedures. Br J Haematol 2003; 122: 825-8.