Accuracy of the CoaguChek XS for point-of-care international normalized ratio (INR) measurement in children requiring warfarin

Bauman, Mary E.; Black, Karina L.; Massicotte, M. Patricia; Bauman, Michelle L.; Kuhle, Stefan; Howlett-Clyne, Susan; Cembrowski, George S.; Bajzar, Laszlo

doi:10.1160/th07-10-0634

Cited by 61 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, high correlations for 2 given methods do not mean that the 2 methods agree [18]. Besides very few other small reports, only our study and the one by Baumann et al [10] have assessed agreement between venous and capillary INR measurements in a substantial number of children using the Bland-Altman analysis. While both studies indicate that capillary INR measurements using the portable PT monitor are very accurate, the negative values in our study show that the capillary INR was on average lower than the venous INR.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Self-Monitoring of Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Children

Paioni¹,

Kroiss

Kägi³

et al. 2009

Acta Haematol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of home International Normalized Ratio (INR) self-monitoring in pediatric patients on long-term oral anticoagulation therapy. Statistical and clinical agreement of INR values from capillary whole blood samples measured by 2 different portable prothrombin time monitors (CoaguChek S and XS) and venous blood samples measured by a laboratory coagulation analyzer were evaluated using the Bland-Altman analysis. Eighty-three INR comparisons (56 using the CoaguChek S and 27 using the CoaguChek XS) were obtained from 35 children aged 4 months to 18 years. Mean differences between venous and capillary INR values and their limits of agreement were –0.04 (–0.63 to 0.55) overall, 0.006 (–0.63 to 0.65) for the CoaguChek S and –0.13 (–0.57 to 0.31) for the CoaguChek XS. The Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.88 overall, 0.84 for the CoaguChek S and 0.95 for the CoaguChek XS. Expanded and narrow agreements for all patients were 97.6 and 94%, respectively. In conclusion, home INR self-monitoring is accurate for children requiring long-term oral anticoagulation therapy. Our data suggest that INR self-monitoring with the newer CoaguChek XS is more accurate than with the older CoaguChek S monitor.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Unfortunately, only few studies evaluating capillary INR monitoring in children have been conducted so far [10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. In particular, very few pediatric data are available on the newer PT monitor, CoaguChek XS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Monitoring of Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Children

Paioni¹,

Kroiss

Kägi³

et al. 2009

Acta Haematol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The safety and reliability of CoaguChek S and CoaguChek XS have been demonstrated in several studies in both adults and children. [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] A number of studies have also compared the performance of CoaguChek S with that of CoaguChek XS in relation to conventional INR measurement. Even though a good agreement between the two CoaguChek models and conventional laboratory-based results has been demonstrated, CoaguChek XS has shown more accurate and precise results than its precursor in both adults and children, especially for higher INR values (> 3.5).…”

Section: Coaguchek Xs Versus Coaguchek Smentioning

confidence: 99%

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care tests (CoaguChek system, INRatio2 PT/INR monitor and ProTime Microcoagulation system) for the self-monitoring of the coagulation status of people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy, compared with standard UK practice: systematic review and economic evaluation

Sharma

Scotland

Cruickshank

et al. 2015

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was commissioned and funded by the HTA programme on behalf of NICE as project number 13/06/01. The protocol was agreed in June 2013. The assessment report began editorial review in December 2013 and was accepted for publication in March 2014. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Departm...

show abstract

“…INR results that are below the lower limit of the therapeutic range confer an increased risk of thrombosis in patients, whereas INR results above the upper therapeutic limit confer an increased risk of bleeding events. Many families of children on warfarin have been supported to perform INR self-testing on a point-of care (POC) device, following the completion of a comprehensive training program [ [4] , [5] , [6] ]. Home patient self-testing (PST) programs have been evaluated and demonstrated to provide safe, efficacious warfarin management and improve the quality of life for both children and families [ [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many families of children on warfarin have been supported to perform INR self-testing on a point-of care (POC) device, following the completion of a comprehensive training program [ [4] , [5] , [6] ]. Home patient self-testing (PST) programs have been evaluated and demonstrated to provide safe, efficacious warfarin management and improve the quality of life for both children and families [ [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%