International normalized ratio (INR) testing in Europe: between-laboratory comparability of test results obtained by Quick and Owren reagents.

Abstract

Abstract Background: This study was designed to obtain an overview of the analytical quality of the prothrombin time, reported as international normalized ratio (INR) and to assess the variation of INR results between European laboratories, the difference between Quick-type and Owren-type methods and the effect of using local INR calibration or not. In addition, we assessed the variation in INR results obtained for a single donation in comparison with a pool of several plasmas. Methods: A set of four different lyophilized plasma samples were distributed via national EQA organizations to participating laboratories for INR measurement. Results: Between-laboratory variation was lower in the Owren group than in the Quick group (on average: 6.7% vs. 8.1%, respectively). Differences in the mean INR value between the Owren and Quick group were relatively small (<0.20 INR). Between-laboratory variation was lower after local INR calibration (CV: 6.7% vs. 8.6%). For laboratories performing local calibration, the between-laboratory variation was quite similar for the Owren and Quick group (on average: 6.5% and 6.7%, respectively). Clinically significant differences in INR results (difference in INR>0.5) were observed between different reagents. No systematic significant differences in the between-laboratory variation for a single-plasma sample and a pooled plasma sample were observed. Conclusions: The comparability for laboratories using local calibration of their thromboplastin reagent is better than for laboratories not performing local calibration. Implementing local calibration is strongly recommended for the measurement of INR.