European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation. Quality Assessment of the CoaguChek Mini and TAS PT-NC Point-of-Care Whole-Blood Prothrombin Time Monitors

BACKGROUND: International Normalized Ratios (INRs) for prothrombin time obtained with the CoaguChek Mini and TAS (RapidPointCoag) PT-NC systems are markedly different and also differ from the "true" INR. There is therefore a need for local quality assessment (QA) of the two systems. METHODS: A set of 60 lyophilized artificially depleted and 60 lyophilized coumarin plasmas were tested at 10 centers on both point-of-care testing monitors. Subsets of three and five plasmas were selected as QA plasmas and compared with the remaining 55 to assess the relative ability of the systems to characterize performance at the individual centers. The incidence of aberrant results (outliers; >15% deviation from the true INR) was also recorded. The expected incidence with the QA plasmas was calculated and compared. RESULTS: On both systems, INR with the common sets of 55 lyophilized plasmas varied considerably between centers. With the TAS PT-NC, subsets of five and three European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation (ECAA) artificially depleted plasmas gave good correlation with the 55 plasmas, but the coumarin plasmas performed less well. With the CoaguChek Mini, correlation was good with sets of five artificially depleted QA plasmas and reasonable with three but was less satisfactory with the coumarin plasmas. Outliers were detected with both types of plasmas on both test systems but with variable success. CONCLUSIONS: With the TAS PT-NC, three ECAA artificially depleted lyophilized plasmas provided reliable QA, but five lyophilized coumarin plasmas were required. With the CoaguChek Mini, five artificially depleted plasmas gave reliable QA but coumarin plasmas gave poorer results. ECAA QA plasmas provide a local system for checking INRs obtained with monitors of both type

Minimum numbers of fresh whole blood and plasma samples from patients and healthy subjects for ISI calibration of CoaguChek and RapidPointCoag monitors

The international sensitivity index (ISI) calibration of point-of-care-test (POCT) prothrombin time (PT) whole blood monitors is complex, requiring manual PT testing of 60 patients' and 20 healthy subjects' plasma samples. The possibility of reducing these numbers was studied by a Monte Carlo Bootstrap study for 2 POCT PT systems. For reduced sample numbers, this consisted of 50, 000 calibrations using whole blood and plasma samples tested on the monitors with manual PT testing of plasma samples from the same blood donations. There was little effect on mean ISI by reduction of sample numbers to a total of 7, but there was progressively less certainty regarding the reliability of the calibration. Precision of the calibrations and international normalized ratio deviation were not affected markedly by reducing numbers to half. As ISI calibration with the 2 POCT systems was less precise than conventional manual testing, for maximum confidence, reduction of numbers is not advised

European concerted action on anticoagulation: Minimum numbers of lyophilized plasma samples for ISI calibration of CoaguChek and TAS point-of-care whole blood prothrombin time monitors

International sensitivity index (ISI) calibration of whole blood prothrombin time (PT) monitors is too complex. We previously simplified the method by using European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation (ECAA) lyophilized plasma samples with the TAS PT-NC (Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) and the CoaguChek Mini (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) whole blood PT monitoring systems. The TAS PT-NC required a correction derived from the line of equivalence. Monte Carlo bootstrap analysis of reducing numbers of test samples was performed with both systems. Plasma samples from patients receiving coumarin (coumarin samples), healthy subjects (normal samples), and plasma samples artificially depleted of coagulation factors were used. With the TAS PT-NC, 20 coumarin samples or 20 artificially depleted samples with 7 normal samples gave reliable ISI and international normalized ratio and satisfactory precision. With the CoaguChek Mini, 30 coumarin and 10 normal samples were required. Simplification of ISI calibration of the 2 monitoring systems is possible using fewer ECAA lyophilized plasma samples than the 80 required according to the World Health Organization guidelines for conventional PT systems and previously recommended for fresh plasma samples tested on the same 2 monitoring systems

Comparative Study of Blood Collection Tubes and Thromboplastin Reagents for Correction of INR Discrepancies A Proposal for Maximum Allowable Magnesium Contamination in Sodium Citrate Anticoagulant Solutions

International normalized ratio (INR) discrepancies were noted between clinical laboratories using various prothrombin time (PT) systems. We studied the influence of different commercial blood collection tubes and different PT systems on INR measurements. INRs of fresh patient samples were determined by 3 laboratories, each using different PT systems. In the first part of the study, samples were drawn with Vacutainer tubes and in the second part with Monovette tubes. In the first part of the study, the maximum bias for all patients amounted to 0.46 INR (14%), and in the second part, to 0.14 INR (4.9%). The maximum bias for all patients could be reduced further by local system calibration using frozen pooled plasma specimens. The sodium citrate solutions in the blood collection tubes were contaminated with magnesium ions (approximately 2.7 mmol/L and 0.3 mmol/L in the Vacutainer and Monovette, respectively). INR discrepancies could be explained largely by this influence of blood collection tubes. The maximum allowable magnesium contamination in sodium citrate anticoagulant solutions should be less than 1 mmol/

A national field study of quality assessment of CoaguChek point-of-care testing prothrombin time monitors

A system for quality assessment (QA) of the CoaguChek (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) point-of-care testing prothrombin time monitor has been developed by the European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation. Hitherto there has not been an adequate rapid method for CoaguChek QA. Sets of 5 certified international normalized ratio (INR) plasma samples were tested on 539 CoaguChek monitors by experienced staff at 9 Netherlands Thrombosis Centers and results compared with certified INR. A 15% or more deviation has been classified as significant deviation. Overall mean and certified INR values were similar, but 20.3% of participants showed a 15% or more deviation from the certified INR on at least 1 of the 5 QA plasma samples. Statistically significant differences in results with different lots of CoaguChek test strips were found. There is need for large scale QA of CoaguChek monitors. The importance of the 5 CoaguChek certified INR QA plasma samples being tested on a single occasion is demonstrated

Quality assessment of CoaguChek point-of-care prothrombin time monitors: Comparison of the European Community - Approved procedure and conventional external quality assessment

Background: There is a need for dependable quality assessment (QA) of the widely used CoaguChek point-of-care testing prothrombin time monitor. By use of the prescribed set of 5 CoaguChek certified international normalized ratio (INR) QA plasmas, we compared the reliability of the immediate QA of individual monitors described in the European Community-recommended Technology Implementation Plan with conventional external QA analysis. Methods: Experienced staff tested CoaguChek point-of-care monitors in routine use for controlling oral anticoagulant dosage at 9 Netherlands Thrombosis Service Centres. Testing was performed with both the certified CoaguChek INR for a set of 5 QA individual plasmas from the Eur Con Action on Anticoag (ECAA) and conventional external QA analysis. Results: Patients brought 523 CoaguChek monitors to our service centers for assessment. The proportion with unsatisfactory performance indicated by a 15% deviation from the ECAA set was compared with 15% deviation from overall median INR of all CoaguChek monitors in the survey, as in conventional QA analysis. The results were similar (20.3% and 18.5%, respectively). Interlot differences of CoaguChek test strips were detected, but the incidence of unsatisfactory performance was similar with both analyses, from 6.5% to 37.5% with the certified INR method and from 5.9% to 33.3% with the overall median analysis. Conclusions: The results validate the use of the European Action on Anticoagulation rapid single-instrument QA-specific procedure for CoaguChek users compared with the nonspecific conventional QA analysis that relies on deviation from the overall median INR