Comparative study of accuracy and clinical agreement of the CoaguChek XS portable device versus standard laboratory practice in unexperienced patients

Eduardo G. Torreiro; Elizabeth Gómez Fernández; Rosa Mariño Rodríguez; Carmen Vázquez López; Julia Barreal Núñez

doi:10.1160/TH08-06-0379

Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Table of Contents

Thromb Haemost 2009; 101(05): 969-974
DOI: 10.1160/TH08-06-0379

New Technologies, Diagnostic Tools and Drugs

Schattauer GmbH

Comparative study of accuracy and clinical agreement of the CoaguChek XS portable device versus standard laboratory practice in unexperienced patients

Eduardo G. Torreiro

¹Haematology Department, Monforte de Lemos Hospital, Monforte de Lemos, Spain

,

Elizabeth Gómez Fernández

¹Haematology Department, Monforte de Lemos Hospital, Monforte de Lemos, Spain

,

Rosa Mariño Rodríguez

¹Haematology Department, Monforte de Lemos Hospital, Monforte de Lemos, Spain

,

Carmen Vázquez López

¹Haematology Department, Monforte de Lemos Hospital, Monforte de Lemos, Spain

,

Julia Barreal Núñez

¹Haematology Department, Monforte de Lemos Hospital, Monforte de Lemos, Spain

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Summary

The objective of the study was to compare the accuracy and clinical agreement of the CoaguChek XS versus the standard laboratory practice. Forty-one patients on long-term anticoagulation with acenocumarol without previous experience in self-monitoring participated to obtain 218 pairs of data. Several methods for comparative statistics were applied to assess the possible disagreements between techniques as well as a range of previously published criteria of clinical agreement and the very recently described error-grid for INR comparison that we partially modify. The mean age was 52.1 and the indications for oral anticoagulation were prosthetic valves (36.59%), atrial fibrillation (34.15%), venous thromboembolic disease (21.95%) and others (7.31%) with a target range of 2–3 INR units (63.4%) or 2.5–3.5 (36.6%). Analyzing the whole series of data, the Pearsons ρ correlation coefficient for precision between methods was 0.95 and the C_b bias correction factor for accuracy 0.99 with a minimal bias of 0.1 INR units between methods applying the Bland-Altman plot. The linear regression procedure described by Passing and Bablok showed a minimal deviation from the best-fit line and a slope of 0.90. The mean of the absolute relative differences was 7% which is in the “very good” range of agreement. No results were found in the clinically “dangerous” D zone of the error-grids with 99% of data in the clinically irrelevant and low relevant areas A and B. In this study self-management with the CoaguChek XS was clinically safe and reliable.

Keywords

Self-management - oral anticoagulation - CoaguChek XS - acenocumarol - INR

Full Text

References

References
1 Cannegieter SC, Rosendaal FR, Wintzen AR. et al. Optimal oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with mechanical heart valves. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 11-17.
2 The European Atrial Fibrillation Trial Study Group.. Optimal oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with non-rheumatic fibrillation and recent cerebral ischemia. N England J Med 1995; 333: 5-9.
3 Loeliger EA. Laboratory control, optimal therapeutic ranges and therapeutic quality control in oral anticoagulation. Acta Haematol 1985; 74: 125-131.
4 Hutten BA, Prins MH, Redekop WK. et al. Comparison of three methods to assess therapeutic quality control of treatment with vitamin K antagonists. Thromb Haemost 1999; 82: 1260-1263.
5 Menéndez-Jándula B, Souto JC, Oliver A. et al. Comparing self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy with clinic management. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 1-10.
6 Siebenhofer A, Berghold A, Sawicki PT. Systematic review of studies of self-management of oral anticoagulation. Thromb Haemost 2004; 91: 225-232.
7 Heneghan C, Alonso-Coello P, Garcia-Alamino JM. et al. Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2006; 367: 404-411.
8 Fitzmaurice DA, Gardiner C, Kitchen S. et al. An evidence-based review and guidelines for patient self-testing and management of oral anticoagulation. British J Haematol 2006; 131: 156-165.
9 Fitzmaurice DA, Murray ET, McCahon D. et al. Self management of oral anticoagulation: randomised trial. Br J Med 2005; 331: 1057.
10 Gadisseur AP, Breukink-Engbers WG, van der Meer FJ. et al. Comparison of the quality of oral anticoagulation therapy through patient self-management and management by specialized anticoagulants clinics in the Netherlands: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163: 2639-2646.
11 Völler H, Taborski U, Dovifat C. et al. ProTime self-management yielding improvement of fluency and quality of life. Thromb Haemost 2007; 98: 889-895.
12 Siebenhofer A, Rakovac I, Kleespies C. et al. Self-management of oral anticoagulation in the elderly: Rationale, design, baselines and oral anticoagulation control after one year of follow-up. Thromb Haemost 2007; 97: 408-416.
13 Hemkens LG, Hilden KM, Hartschen S. et al. A randomized trial comparing INR monitoring devices in patients with anticoagulation self-management: evaluation of a novel error-grid approach. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2008; 26: 22-30.
14 Watzke HH, Forberg E, Svolba G. et al. A prospective controlled trial comparing weekly self-testing and self-dosing with the standard management of patients on stable anticoagulation. Thromb Haemost 2000; 83: 661-665.
15 Braun S, Watzke H, Hasenkam JM. et al. Performance evaluation of the new CoaguChek XS system compared with the established CoaguChek system by patients experienced in INR self-management. Thromb Haemost 2007; 97: 310-314.
16 Nam MH, Roh KH, Pak HN. et al. Evaluation of the Roche CoaguChek XS handheld coagulation analyzer in a cardiac outpatient clinic. Ann Clin Lab Sci 2008; 38: 37-40.
17 Williams VK, Griffiths AB. Acceptability of CoaguChek S and CoaguChek XS generated international normalised ratios against a laboratory standard in a paediatric setting. Pathology 2007; Dec 39: 575-579.
18 Bereznicki LR, Jackson SL, Peterson GM. et al. Accuracy and clinical utility of the CoaguChek XS portable international normalised ratio monitor in a pilot study of warfarin home-monitoring. J Clin Pathol 2007; 60: 311-314.
19 Luz Leiria TL, Pellanda LC, Magalhaes E. et al. Comparative study of a portable system for prothrombin monitoring using capillary blood against venous blood measurements in patient using oral anticoagulants: correlation and concordance. Arq Bras Cardiol 2007; 89: 1-5.
20 Bauman ME, Black KL, Massicotte MP. et al. Accuracy of the CoaguChek XS por point-of-care international normalized ratio (INR) measurement in children requiring warfarin. Thromb Haemost 2008; 99: 1097-1103.
21 Douketis JD, Lane A, Milne J. et al. Accuracy of a portable international normalization ratio monitor in outpatients receiving long-term oral anticoagulant therapy: comparison with a laboratory reference standard using clinically relevant criteria for agreement. Throm Res 1998; 92: 11-17.
22 Hill J. Determination of INR accuracy: Methods of analysis. Haemostasis 1996; 26 (Suppl. 03) 422.
23 Leichsenring I, Plesch W, Unkrig V. et al. Multi-centre ISI assignment and calibration of the INR measuring range of a new point-of-care system designed for home monitoring of oral anticoagulation therapy. Thromb Haemost 2007; 97: 856-861.
24 World Health Organization Committee on Biological Standardization: Guidelines for thromboplastins and plasmas used to control anticoagulant therapy. WHO Technical Report Series 1999; 889: 64-93.
25 Tripodi A, Arbini AA, Chatarangkul V. et al. Are capillary whole blood coagulation monitors suitable for the control of oral anticoagulant treatment by the international normalized ratio?. Thromb Haemost 1993; 70: 921-924.
26 Bland MJ, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 327: 307-310.
27 Passing H, Bablok W. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, Part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1983; 21: 709-720.
28 Lin LI-K. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989; 45: 255-268.
29 Cox DJ, Clarke WL, Gonder-Frederick L. et al. Accuracy of perceiving blood glucose in IDDM. Diabetes Care 1985; 08: 529-536.
30 Gough DA, Botvinick EL. Reservations on the use of error grid analysis for the validation of blood glucose assays. Diabetes Care 2000; 20: 1034-1036.
31 Parkes JL, Slatin SL, Pardo S. et al. A new consensus error grid to evaluate the clinical significance of inaccuracies in the measurement of blood glucose. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: 1143-1148.
32 Kjeldsen J, Lassen JF, Petersen PH. et al. Biological variation of International Normalized Ratio for prothrombin times, and consequences in monitoring oral anticoagulant therapy: computer simulation of serial measurements with goal-setting for analytical quality. Clin Chem 1997; 43: 2175-2182.
33 McBane 2^nd RD, Felty CL, Hartgers ML. et al. Importance of device evaluation for point-of-care prothrombin time international normalized ratio testing programs. Mayo Clin Proc 2005; 80: 181-186.
34 Vacas M, Lafuente PJ, Unanue I. et al. Comparative study of two portable systems for oral anticoagulant monitoring. Hematol J 2004; 05: 35-38.
35 Horsti J, Uppa H, Vilpo JA. Poor Agreement among Prothrombin time International Normalized Ratio Methods: Comparison of Seven Commercial Reagents. Clin Chem 2005; 51: 553-560.
36 Anderson DR, Harrison L, Hirsh J. Evaluation of a portable prothrombin time monitor for home use by patients sho require long-term oral anticoagulant therapy. Arch Intern Med 1993; 153: 1441-1447.