JAMDA
Volume 8, Issue 6 , Pages 404-408, July 2007

Measuring International Normalized Ratios in Long-Term Care: A Comparison of Commercial Laboratory and Point-of-Care Device Results

  • Daniel Bluestein, MD, MS, CMD, AGSF

      Affiliations

    • Department of Family and Community Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to Daniel Bluestein, MD, MS, CMD, AGSF, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, 721 Fairfax Avenue, Norfolk, VA 23507.
  • ,
  • Cynthia Brantley, MSN, GNP
  • ,
  • Myra Barnes-Eley, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Center for Pediatric Research, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA
  • ,
  • Stefan Gravenstein, MD, MPH, CMD, AGSF

      Affiliations

    • Glennan Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA
  • ,
  • Sameh Basta, MD

      Affiliations

    • Sentara Health Care, Norfolk, VA.

published online 16 June 2007.

Objectives

Point-of-care (POC) anticoagulation testing devices can potentially improve warfarin therapeutics in long-term care; however, there is variable accuracy reported for these devices and scant data when used in older adults. Accordingly, we undertook this study to determine the accuracy of a POC device (Hemosense INratio) in long-term care settings and examine factors associated with discrepant results.

Design

Case series.

Setting

Two, demographically comparable continuing-care retirement communities in the Southeastern United States.

Participants

Long-term (nursing home and assisted living) residents with atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, or prior cerebrovascular accident (16 at site 1; 8 at site 2).

Measurements

INR results calculated by the Hemosense device were compared with those determined by venipuncture-collected samples run in commercial laboratories. Patient demographic and clinical data were collected, as was performance by tester.

Results

Correlation varied between sites and, at site 1, between testers. Accuracy at site 1 was comparable to published reports for 2 of the 3 testers, with rather disconcerting discrepancy rates of 17.8% and 23.1%. However, correlation for the third tester was much better, with only a 7% discrepancy rate based on clinician rating of Hemosense-Reference lab differences. Correlation at site 2 was considerably worse than site 1, to the point that the Hemosense could not be safely adopted.

Conclusion

POC devices may not be appropriate for commercial laboratory tests substitution without prior performance evaluation. Running POC INRs concurrent with laboratory-determined INRS can determine test reliability. Timing of Hemosense testing in relation to when laboratory INRs were drawn is one likely explanation for our results, although user differences may also contribute significantly. Further research in larger, more diverse populations, using a variety of POC devices, and with direct comparison of older and younger patients is needed.

Keywords: Point-of-care systems, long-term care, warfarin, anticoagulation

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Funding for this study was provided by AMDA Foundation/Pfizer Quality Improvement Awards to the first and second authors. The authors report no conflicts of interest

PII: S1525-8610(07)00170-3

doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2007.02.006

JAMDA
Volume 8, Issue 6 , Pages 404-408, July 2007