No abstract

BackgroundThe Westergren method is the golden standard for measuring erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). All ESR methods should agree with the standardized method of the International Council for Standardization in Hematology (ICSH). Citrate samples are commonly used for ESR. This extra sample adds costs and can be inconvenient for the patient. Therefore, some new automated ESR analyzers use EDTA samples, which are available for other hematology measurements.MethodsWe compared ESR measurements with StaRRsed Auto-Compact instrument to the ICSH standardized Westergren method in 200 patient samples.ResultsThe correlation between methods was fairly good (R2 = 0.72, y = 1.066x 0.24). However, with ESR results over 11 mm/h there were 55 subjects with a difference of over 30% between methods.ConclusionsThis may have led to different treatment suggestions in 25 cases according to age- and gender-dependent normal values. The difference may be caused by two different anticoagulants used, different measuring times and the correlation equation used. The StaRRsed ESR method should be in better agreement with the Westergren method, which is the golden standard. ESR results have notable impact on patient diagnosis and follow-up.KeywordsESR; Erythrocyte sedimentation rate; StaRRsed; Westergren method

Prothrombin time (PT) is tested mostly to monitor patients on oral anticoagulant treatment. The International Normalised Ratio (INR) was introduced to improve and harmonise PT results and therapeutic range globally for patient care and the scientific literature. We studied the Quick PT in 179 patients and the Owren PT in 137 patients on oral anticoagulant therapy using two different reagents for the two methods of measuring PT. We assessed the clinical significance of the INR results obtained by each method using the two reagents and compared the Quick and Owren methods. We conclude that with the Quick method individual INR results differed from each other too much clinically, while using the Owren method individual INR results were clinically acceptable. Our opinion is that we should develop the INR system using the Owren PT method rather than the Quick to improve patient care.

Prothrombin time (PT) is the leading test for monitoring oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT). We sought to determine INR taking into account only active coagulation factors FII, FVII and FX without inhibition in patient plasmas and calibrator kits.We measured PT using a combined thromboplastin reagent. The calculation was based on a new PT method, which measures active coagulation factors (F II, F VII, FX) and corrects the errors caused by inactive coagulation factors.On this basis, an INR result with and without inhibition for individual patient samples was also calculated and applied to 200 plasma samples obtained from OAT patients. Conspicuous variation in inhibition between the four calibration kits was noted. The kinetics of this inhibition was closest to a noncompetitive pattern.The need of correction for INRs of single patients increases with higher INRs. At the same level of patient INRs the coagulation inhibiton varies markedly.It has been known that different thromboplastin reagents possess variable sensitivities, but this may depend on sensitivity in inactive coagulation factors. PT methods today measure the sum of active coagulation factors and inhibition of inactive coagulation factors. ISI calibrators contain variable amounts of inactive coagulation factors, which renders harmonisation of INR results.Application of the Acf-PT (INRAcf) presented in this work develops the PT methodology to measure the true coagulation activity in vivo for patient warfarin therapy without inhibition. INRInh can evidently also be used for the diagnostics and follow-up of certain liver diseases.

Prothrombin time (PT) is the most commonly used coagulation test in health care. We sought here to compare two major PT methods (Quick and Owren) for harmonization of International Normalized Ratio (INR) results. We measured PT with an ACL 7000 analyser. We used three Owren and three Quick reagents for PT, and estimated the International Sensitivity Index (ISI) for each reagent using two local and two manufactured ISI calibrator sets. The coagulation time was measured using five different normal plasmas to assess variation for every reagent and both methods. We studied the analytical bias for every reagent and both methods at INR = 1.0 and INR = 2.5. The mean percentage coefficient of variation of the Owren reagent ISI was 2.40% and that of the Quick reagent ISI was 12.85%. The mean percentage coefficient of variation of normal plasma seconds for the Owren method was 2.54% and that for Quick was 4.02%. The absolute error at INR = 1.0 and INR = 2.5 was 0.00 and 0.04 INR for Owren, and 0.01 and 0.16 INR for Quick. The Owren PT method has the advantage over the Quick PT method in ISI calibration, normal plasma variation, within-run analytical variation and absolute error at INR = 2.5. The INR system is more demanding on analytical quality than earlier units (Ratio,%). The data would indicate that the Owren PT method has advantages over the Quick PT method in harmonization of the INR system.