Performance evaluation of the micro<scp>INR</scp><sup>®</sup> point‐of‐care <scp>INR</scp>‐testing system

Joubert, Jaco; Zyl, Martin van; Raubenheimer, Jacques

doi:10.1111/ijlh.12749

Cited by 4 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, high levels of dosage concordance were observed (85.46%). This concurs with the results of Lawrie et al and Joubert et al on the CoaguChek XS Plus and the microINR ® , respectively . Although, the mean laboratory INR was significantly higher than the qLabs POC device ® INR ( P < .0001); the clinical agreement was >90% for INR values within ±0.5 units or ±30% for INR ranges below and within the INR target range, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The qLabs POC device ® was found to be reliable and robust with an error message rate of <5%. This compares favorably with the safety and reliability of other available POC devices, such as the SmartCheck INR ® , the CoaguChek XS Plus ® , and the micro- 15,24,25 In this study, the most frequent error observed was the operator-dependant message of "insufficient blood added to the sample well" (n = 7, 2.67%). This highlights the importance of initial training.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

“…Similarly, the qLabs POC device ® showed good imprecision of <5% with qLabs PT‐INR liquid control material. Studies have demonstrated discrepant CV’s between capillary blood and liquid control material for assessment of imprecision . However, in this study, imprecision was not performed with duplicate capillary blood specimens.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…A systemic bias has been reported for most POC devices. Locally, a positive bias (4.4%, CI, −0.66 to 0.88) has been demonstrated on the microINR ® and a negative bias (0.09%, CI, −0.61 to 0.79) on the CoaguChek XS device . Specifically, studies have reported an overestimation of INR measurements above 4.5 and underestimation of INR’s within or below the therapeutic range .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Verification of the qLabs international normalized ratio point‐of‐care device for monitoring of patients attending an anticoagulation clinic

Mbokota

Schapkaitz

Louw

2018

Int J Lab Hematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Verification of the qLabs international normalized ratio point‐of‐care device for monitoring of patients attending an anticoagulation clinic

Mbokota

Schapkaitz

Louw

2018

Int J Lab Hematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Before affordable generic NOACs become available, warfarin will remain the anticoagulant of choice for the management of AF in SSA . To reduce the financial and human resources required for conventional INR monitoring, point‐of‐care INR testing has been proposed and its validity has been demonstrated in some studies in SSA …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the epidemiology of atrial fibrillation in sub‐Saharan Africa

Noubiap

Nyaga²

2019

Cardiovasc electrophysiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review summarizes the data on the prevalence, risk factors, complications, and management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA). Bibliographic databases were searched from inception to 31 May 2019, to identify all published studies providing data on AF in populations living in SSA. A total of 72 studies were included. The community‐based prevalence of AF was 4.3% and 0.7% in individuals aged ≥40 years and aged ≥70 years, respectively. The prevalence of AF ranged between 6.7% and 34.8% in patients with ischemic stroke, between 9.5% and 46.8% in those with rheumatic heart disease (RHD), between 5% and 31.5% in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. The main risk factors for AF were hypertension, affecting at least one‐third of patients with AF, and valvular heart disease (12.3%‐44.4%) and cardiomyopathy (~20%). Complications of AF included heart failure in about two thirds and stroke in 10% to 15% of cases. The use of anticoagulation for stroke prevention was suboptimal. Rate control was the most frequent therapeutic strategy, used in approximately 65% to 95% of AF patients, with approximately 80% of them achieving rate control. The management of AF was associated with exorbitant cost. In conclusion, AF seems to have a higher prevalence in the general population than previously thought and is mostly associated with hypertension, cardiomyopathy, and RHD in SSA. It is associated with a high incidence of heart failure and stroke. The management of AF is suboptimal in SSA, especially with a low uptake of oral anticoagulation.

show abstract

Performance of the microINR Point-of-Care System: A Multicenter Clinical Trial

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction There are limited publications about the microINR point-of-care (POC) system (iLine Microsystems). The current microINR POC system was compared with the ACL TOP 500 laboratory analyzer (Instrumentation Laboratory) and with the CoaguChek XS POC system (Roche Diagnostics). Methods This study was performed at three United States medical centers. Sixty-eight nonanticoagulated normal donors and 245 warfarin anticoagulated patients were included. Testing was performed in duplicate using capillary blood samples for the POC systems and venous blood samples for the laboratory testing. Accuracy and imprecision were assessed. Results Comparing microINR to ACL revealed a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.973, a slope of 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97–1.03), and an intercept of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.04–0.15). When compared with the CoaguChek XS, r was 0.977 with a slope of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89–0.94) and an intercept of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.08–0.19). Predicted bias values at international normalized ratio (INR) 2.0, 3.5, and 4.5 were ≤ 5% against both references. Agreement with ACL was 97, 95, and 100% for the INR ranges of < 2.0 ± 0.40, 2.0 to 4.5 ± 20%, and ≥ 4.5 ± 25%, respectively. Agreement for the combined INR ranges was 96% against ACL and > 96% against the CoaguChek XS. The coefficient of variation of the microINR was 5.03% for INR < 2.0 and 4.68% for the therapeutic INR range 2.0 to 3.5. Conclusion The microINR results demonstrate adequate imprecision and accuracy to both ACL and CoaguChek XS. This indicates that monitoring INR by this microINR POC system is reliable and acceptable for the management of warfarin therapy.

show abstract

Performance evaluation of the microINR^® point‐of‐care INR‐testing system

Abstract: The microINR instrument is accurate and precise for monitoring warfarin therapy.

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

Verification of the qLabs international normalized ratio point‐of‐care device for monitoring of patients attending an anticoagulation clinic

Verification of the qLabs international normalized ratio point‐of‐care device for monitoring of patients attending an anticoagulation clinic

A review of the epidemiology of atrial fibrillation in sub‐Saharan Africa

Performance of the microINR Point-of-Care System: A Multicenter Clinical Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Performance evaluation of the microINR® point‐of‐care INR‐testing system

Abstract: The microINR instrument is accurate and precise for monitoring warfarin therapy.

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

Verification of the qLabs international normalized ratio point‐of‐care device for monitoring of patients attending an anticoagulation clinic

Verification of the qLabs international normalized ratio point‐of‐care device for monitoring of patients attending an anticoagulation clinic

A review of the epidemiology of atrial fibrillation in sub‐Saharan Africa

Performance of the microINR Point-of-Care System: A Multicenter Clinical Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Performance evaluation of the microINR^® point‐of‐care INR‐testing system