1998American Journal of Clinical PathologyRequires access

Highly Sensitive Thromboplastins Do Not Improve INR Precision

Valerie L. Ng, Rafael Valdes-Camin, Eugene L. Gottfried, Stephen A. Echaves, Andrew G. Stead, Ray F. Ebert

Open publisher page 9 citations

Abstract

For determination of the international normalized ratio (INR), it has been suggested that "highly sensitive" thromboplastin reagents (International Sensitivity Index [ISI] < or = 1.2) provide the most consistent performance and minimize interlaboratory variability. We compared the INR values obtained from 69 specimens drawn from patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulant therapy, using four thromboplastin preparations (manufacturer-assigned ISI range of 0.96-1.10) and two automated photo-optical analyzers. Multivariate analysis of the INR response matrix (552 INR values) indicated that the eight reagent-coagulometer combinations did not produce equivalent INR values. Similar analysis indicated that INR values were not normalized when uncorrected prothrombin ratios or INR values, calculated after assignment of "local ISI values" to each thromboplastin reagent, were compared. The INR differences also seemed to be clinically significant because 17% to 29% of paired thromboplastin values were discordant when all INR values were assigned to one of four therapeutic categories used in oral anticoagulant therapy (< 2.0; 2.0-3.0; 3.0-4.5; or > 4.5). These differences in INR values obtained with two photo-optical coagulometers and four highly sensitive thromboplastin reagents suggest that the existing INR system has not achieved the goal of standardized prothrombin time values and does not support the recommendation to use only highly sensitive reagents for the regulation of oral anticoagulant therapy.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

For determination of the international normalized ratio (INR), it has been suggested that "highly sensitive" thromboplastin reagents (International Sensitivity Index [ISI] < or = 1.2) provide the most consistent performance and minimize interlaboratory variability. We compared the INR values obtained from 69 specimens drawn from patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulant therapy, using four thromboplastin preparations (manufacturer-assigned ISI range of 0.96-1.10) and two automated photo-optical analyzers. Multivariate analysis of the INR response matrix (552 INR values) indicated that the eight reagent-coagulometer combinations did not produce equivalent INR values. Similar analysis indicated that INR values were not normalized when uncorrected prothrombin ratios or INR values, calculated after assignment of "local ISI values" to each thromboplastin reagent, were compared. The INR differences also seemed to be clinically significant because 17% to 29% of paired thromboplastin values were discordant when all INR values were assigned to one of four therapeutic categories used in oral anticoagulant therapy (< 2.0; 2.0-3.0; 3.0-4.5; or > 4.5). These differences in INR values obtained with two photo-optical coagulometers and four highly sensitive thromboplastin reagents suggest that the existing INR system has not achieved the goal of standardized prothrombin time values and does not support the recommendation to use only highly sensitive reagents for the regulation of oral anticoagulant therapy.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 9 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

For determination of the international normalized ratio (INR), it has been suggested that "highly sensitive" thromboplastin reagents (International Sensitivity Index [ISI] < or = 1.2) provide the most consistent performance and minimize interlaboratory variability. We compared the INR values obtained from 69 specimens drawn from patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulant therapy, using four thromboplastin preparations (manufacturer-assigned ISI range of 0.96-1.10) and two automated photo-optical analyzers. Multivariate analysis of the INR response matrix (552 INR values) indicated that the eight reagent-coagulometer combinations did not produce equivalent INR values. Similar analysis indicated that INR values were not normalized when uncorrected prothrombin ratios or INR values, calculated after assignment of "local ISI values" to each thromboplastin reagent, were compared. The INR differences also seemed to be clinically significant because 17% to 29% of paired thromboplastin values were discordant when all INR values were assigned to one of four therapeutic categories used in oral anticoagulant therapy (< 2.0; 2.0-3.0; 3.0-4.5; or > 4.5). These differences in INR values obtained with two photo-optical coagulometers and four highly sensitive thromboplastin reagents suggest that the existing INR system has not achieved the goal of standardized prothrombin time values and does not support the recommendation to use only highly sensitive reagents for the regulation of oral anticoagulant therapy.

Key concepts: Thromboplastin, Oral anticoagulant, Prothrombin time, Partial thromboplastin time, Medicine, Anticoagulant, Reagent, Anticoagulant therapy

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Highly Sensitive Thromboplastins Do Not Improve INR Precision — Research Paper | ScholarLens