XS Plus Research Articles

CoaguChek and Coag-Sense PT2 Meter Point of Care INR Device Validation

ObjectiveTo standardize international normalized ratio (INR) measurements and improve data integrity by enabling electronic result transmission for warfarin monitoring, two point-of-care (POC) devices were evaluated against an internal plasma INR reference method. MethodsA multicenter study was pursued (January 24, 2022, through October 19, 2022) to compare concordance of two commercially available POC devices, Coag-Sense PT2 Meter (Coag-Sense) and CoaguChek XS Pro and Plus devices (CoaguChek), against an internal plasma INR method among patients treated with warfarin. Bias and linear regression analysis were assessed for these devices including dosing decision accuracy compared with plasma INR reference. ResultsTwo hundred ninety-nine patients treated with warfarin across three Mayo Clinic sites agreed to participate. Atrial fibrillation (n=191, 63.9%), venous thromboembolism (n=65; 21.7%), and heart valve prosthesis (n=46; 15.4%) were common anticoagulant indications with a 2.5 INR target for 280 (93.6%) of patients. For the CoaguChek devices, 243 (81.3%) of values fell within 0.2 INR units with plasma INR referent and 285 (95.3%) within 0.4 units (R2=0.93). For the Coag-Sense device, 102 (34.1%) of values fell within 0.2 INR units and 180 (60.2%) within 0.4 INR units of plasma INR values, (R2=0.83; P<.0001). Using the plasma INR as the gold standard, appropriate dosing recommendations would have occurred for 292 (97.7%) of the CoaguChek and 244 (81.6%) of the Coag-Sense results. ConclusionCompared with a plasma referent, INR values obtained from the CoaguChek devices exhibited less systematic bias compared with Coag-Sense measures. This translates to a greater percentage of concordant management decisions between POC and laboratory INR methods.

A-373 Comparison of the CoaguChek ® and Coag-Sense ® PT2 Meter Point of Care INR Devices

Abstract Background Warfarin monitoring may be done at the point-of-care (POC) at home, in a clinic environment, or be performed using plasma specimens in a central laboratory. With a goal of standardizing International Normalization Ratio (INR) measurements and improving data integrity by enabling electronic transmission of results from any location, we evaluated two POC INR devices against an internal plasma INR reference method. Methods We conducted a multicenter study to test the accuracy of two commercially available point of care devices: Coag-Sense PT2 Meter (Coagusense, Inc., Fremont, CA) and CoaguChek XS Pro or XS Plus (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN) compared with plasma INR values among warfarin treated patients. Bias and linear regression analysis were assessed for device-plasma INR comparisons. Warfarin dosing decisions were assessed for each device compared to an internal plasma INR reference method (Instrumentation Laboratories ACLTOP 500, 550, 750 analyzers (Werfen Diagnostics, Bedford MA) in one of three CLIA-certified laboratories. The thromboplastin used at our institution for INR measures is HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (R2G) reagent (Werfen Diagnostics, Bedford MA) which has an International Sensitivity Index (ISI) of 1.0. Results Two hundred ninety-nine warfarin patients treated across three Mayo Clinic sites agreed to participate in the study. Common anticoagulant indications were atrial fibrillation (63.9%), venous thromboembolism (21.7%) and heart valve prosthesis (15.4%) with a 2.0–3.0 INR target range for 93.6% of patients. For the CoaguChek devices, 81.3% of values fell within 0.2 INR units of plasma INR referent and 95.3% within 0.4 units. The correlation between CoaguChek whole blood and plasma INR was excellent (R2 = 0.93). For the Coag-Sense device, 34.1% of values fell within 0.2 INR units and 60.2% within 0.4 INR units of plasma INR values, with a slightly weaker correlation between Coag-Sense whole blood and plasma INR (R2 = 0.83; P &amp;lt; 0.0001). Mean (± standard deviation) deviation from plasma INR was 0.04 ± 0.2 for CoaguChek compared to 0.4 ± 0.3 for Coag-Sense (P &amp;lt; 0.0001). The difference between POC devices was largely attributed to systematic negative bias between Coag-Sense and ACL TOP plasma INR values. Using the plasma INR as the reference method for dosing decision making, appropriate dosing recommendations would have occurred for 97.7% of CoaguChek and 81.6% of Coag-Sense results. Conclusion Compared to our institution's plasma reference method, INR values obtained from the CoaguChek devices (XS Pro and XS Plus) exhibited less systematic bias compared to the Coag-Sense values. This translates to greater percentage of concordant management decisions between POC and laboratory plasma INR methods when the CoaguChek device is used.

Evaluating the Effect of Timing on Point-of-Care Testing of INR

Objectives: To evaluate if there is a difference in International Normalized Ratio (INR) readings taken within the 15 second time frame after lancing the finger vs 30-60 seconds of obtaining a blood drop utilizing a CoaguChek® XS Plus point-of-care (POC) INR machine in patients on warfarin therapy. Methods: All adult patients on anticoagulation therapy with warfarin who were managed in a pharmacist-run anticoagulation clinic were considered for inclusion in the study. The mean difference of INR readings taken less than 15 seconds vs between 30-60 seconds after the blood drop was obtained from the finger was assessed. Results: A total of 62 pairs of INR results were included in the study. There was a mean difference in INR of .076 (95% CI 0.011-.140; P = .0217) when comparing INR readings taken less than 15 seconds and between 30-60 seconds after the blood drop was obtained from the finger. Conclusions: There was a significant difference in INR readings taken less than 15 seconds vs 30-60 seconds after obtaining the blood drop when utilizing a POC INR machine. INR readings taken 30-60 seconds after obtaining a blood drop with the CoaguChek® XS Plus POC INR machine is not acceptable for use to monitor patients on warfarin.

Association between Intracanal Medicament Radiopacity and Streak Artifact Production Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: A Laboratory Study

IntroductionThis study aimed to calculate the correlation between the radiopacity levels of various intracanal medicaments and radiolucent streak formation using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MethodsSeven commercially-available intracanal medicaments were tested, which contained different amounts of radiopacifier [Consepsis, Ca(OH)2, UltraCal XS, Calmix, Odontopaste, Odontocide, and Diapex Plus]. Their radiopacity levels were measured according to the International Organization for Standardization 13116 testing standards (mmAl). Subsequently, the medicaments were placed in 3 canals of radiopaque artificial printed maxillary molars (n = 15 roots per medicament), leaving the second mesiobuccal canal empty. CBCT imaging was carried out using an Orthophos SL 3-dimensional scanner under recommended manufacturer exposure settings. Radiopaque streak formation was assessed by a calibrated examiner using a previously published grading system (0–3). The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests with and without Bonferroni correction were used to compare radiopacity levels and radiopaque streak scores for the medicaments. Their relationship was assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The level of significance was set as (α = 0.05). ResultsDiapex plus presented with the highest radiopacity levels (4.98 ± 0.01) and radiopaque streak scores [middle third (2.8 ± 0.18); apical third (2.73 ± 0.43)]; which was similar to UltraCal XS's radiopaque streak scores [middle third (2.8 ± 0.92); apical third (2.73 ± 0.77)]. Consepsis had the lowest radiopacity levels (0.12 ± 0.05), followed by Odontocide (0.60 ± 0.05). Consepsis and Ca(OH)2 were scored 0 for artifacts in all roots at all levels. A high positive correlation (R = 0.95) was found between radiopacity and streak formation. ConclusionsThe radiopacity of intracanal medicaments varies and strongly correlates with the formation of radiolucent streak artifacts during CBCT.

Reliability of International Normalized Ratio Results in the CoaguChek Pro II System in a Clinical Setting.

The National Institute of Cardiology has previously used the CoaguChek® XS Plus system (Roche Diagnostics International Ltd), comparing capillary blood prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR) results with those obtained using BCS-XP/Thromborel (Siemens). We assessed the reliability of PT/INR results using the third-generation CoaguChek Pro II system, the CoaguChek XS Plus system, and cobas® t 411 for citrated plasma analysis. Venous and capillary PT/INR were measured (N = 204). Spearman's correlation, Bland-Altman, and concordance analysis between methods were conducted. Spearman's correlation coefficients between venous/capillary INR were high for CoaguChek Pro II versus CoaguChek XS Plus (r = 0.994), CoaguChek Pro II versus cobas t 411 (r = 0.967), and CoaguChek XS Plus versus cobas t 411 (r = 0.968). Good concordance was observed among capillary methods (concordance coefficient [κ] = 0.888) and remaining relationships (P < .001 for all): cobas t 411 versus CoaguChek XS Plus (κ = 0.696) and cobas t 411 versus CoaguChek Pro II (κ = 0.684). In conclusion, good agreement was observed between CoaguChek Pro II, CoaguChek XS Plus, and cobas t 411.

Point-of-care international normalized ratio testing is rapid and reliable: A prospective observational cohort study

Background: International normalized ratio (INR) >1.5 may indicate need for reversal of coagulopathy or massive transfusion (MT) in trauma patients. Thus, obtaining INR values as early as possible would expedite both clinical decisions. This study evaluates the reliability of using a point-of-care (POC) device to obtain INR results more rapidly. Methods: A trained pharmacist used the CoaguChek® XS Plus (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland) device to determine POC INRs in venous blood from adult (>18 years) trauma patients not transfused prior to arrival. POC and laboratory INR (lab INR) values and times to availability were compared. The POC INR value was not used for clinical treatment decisions. Results: POC INR was performed on 177 patients; 43 were excluded due to missing lab INR or later recognition of prehospital blood transfusion. The mean lab INR was 1.163, and the mean POC INR was 1.167. The paired samples correlation was 0.958 (P Conclusion: This study confirms that POC INR is a rapid, reliable tool to detect patients who may need prompt reversal of anticoagulant medications or initiation of MT. The following core competencies are addressed in this article: Patient care, Medical knowledge, Systems based practice

Establishing an external quality assessment scheme for point-of-care international normalized ratio in Thailand.

Effective warfarin therapy management has gained national interest, resulting in the increased use of point-of-care testing (POCT) for international normalized ratio (INR). External quality assessment (EQA) is recommended to ensure quality of the testing. CoaguChek XS and CoaguChek XS Plus are the only commonly available POCT INR monitors in Thailand. Therefore, Thailand NEQAS for Blood Coagulation initiated the scheme for POCT INR in 2013, including only hospitals using these devices. Questionnaires were sent to the hospitals, enquiring about their interest in EQA participation. Two surveys were distributed; each included five certified European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation (ECAA) INR plasma sets. Unsatisfactory performance was indicated by a 15% deviation from the certified mean INR value. There were 156 hospitals using the devices. Thirty-five hospitals responded to the questionnaires. Medical personnel undertaking POCT INR were limited to laboratory staff in 29 (83%) of these centers, and 31 hospitals actually participated. The medians of results from participants were the same or nearly the same as the certified mean INRs. External quality assessment for POCT INR in Thailand is feasible using the ECAA plasmas as control materials. The results therefore appear encouraging to other developing countries to establish their own EQA schemes.

Revalidation of CoaguChek XS plus system for INR monitoring in Taiwanese patients: effects of clinical and genetic factors.

In this study, we evaluated the performance of a point-of-care device, the CoaguChek XS Plus system, in the determination of prothrombin time and international normalized ratio (INR) based on ISO17593: 2007 criteria in Taiwanese patients. The underlying clinical and genetic factors were also investigated. Fifty patients receiving warfarin therapy were enrolled in this study. The accuracy of the CoaguChek XS Plus system was evaluated with linear regression analysis and bias plot by comparing with the data measured using Sysmex CA-1500. The clinical and genetic factors that may have caused a bias of ΃ 0.5 INR were evaluated with Fisher's exact test. From the 50 patients, 93 INR values were collected by each method. Linear regression analysis indicated a high correlation with r = 0.96, a slope of 1.05, and an intercept of - 0.14. Eight patients showed an INR bias ≥0.5 between the two methods. Only aspartate aminotransferase (AST) >34 U/L (3/8, 37.5% vs. 3/42, 7.1%; p = 0.044) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) >36 U/L (3/8, 37.5% vs. 3/42, 7.1%; p = 0.044) were significantly different from each other. No differences were observed for hypoalbuminemia, elevated creatinine, anemia, and the polymorphisms of VKORC1 and CYP2C9. The CoaguChek XS Plus system presented results that were comparable with those obtained using laboratory CA-1500 method. Both methods fell within INR in the range of 2-4.5 defined by ISO17593:2007 and the clinically recognized therapeutic INR range of 2-3.5. Elevated AST and ALT levels might have interfered with the INR results.

Comparison of International Normalized Ratio Measurement between CoaguChek XS Plus and STA-R Coagulation Analyzers

Background. Point-of-care testing (POCT) coagulometers are increasingly being used in the hospital setting. We investigated whether the prothrombin time international normalized ratio (INR) results by CoaguChek XS Plus (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) can be used reliably without being confirmed with the INR results by STA-R system (Diagnostica Stago S.A.S, Asnières sur Seine, France). Methods. A total of 118 INR measurements by CoaguChek XS Plus and STA-R were compared using Passing/Bablok regression analysis and Bland-Altman plot. Agreement of the INR measurements was further assessed in relation to dosing decision. Results. The correlation of INR measurements between CoaguChek XS Plus and STA-R was excellent (correlation coefficient = 0.964). The mean difference tended to increase as INR results increased and was 0.25 INR in the therapeutic range (2.0-3.0 INR). The overall agreement was fair to good (kappa = 0.679), and 21/118 (17.8%) INR measurements showed a difference in dosing decision. Conclusion. The positive bias of CoaguChek XS Plus may be obvious even in the therapeutic INR range, and dosing decision based on the CoaguChek XS Plus INR results would be different from that based on the STA-R results. The INR measurements by POCT coagulometers still need to be confirmed with the laboratory INR measurements.

Point of Care INR testing devices: performance of the Roche CoaguChek XS and XS Plus in the UK NEQAS BC external quality assessment programme for healthcare professionals: four years’ experience

BackgroundVitamin K antagonists have been used for many decades and have been traditionally monitored by the measurement of the International Normalised Ratio (INR) in the laboratory. Introduction of Point of...

Point-of-care prothrombin time testing in paediatric intensive care

Two major difficulties arise when taking blood samples in children: the challenge of venous access and the comparatively large amount of blood required. To assess the value of point-of-care prothrombin time testing in paediatric intensive care patients. We evaluated two point-of-care devices, CoaguChek XS Plus and CoaLine, assessing ease of use in clinical practice and correlation with the standard prothrombin time measurement of the haematology laboratory. Single-centre observational study. Between October 2007 and March 2008, patients in an interdisciplinary paediatric ICU of a tertiary centre were analysed. Thirty-eight patients, 22 female and 16 male (58 and 42%), aged between 0 and 13 years, participated in the study. The intention was to evaluate the ease of use of the devices in daily clinical practice, and no exclusion criteria were applied. The usefulness of the two point-of-care devices in the paediatric setting was evaluated. Measurements of point-of-care and standard laboratory prothrombin time were compared in terms of agreement and correlation. CoaguChek XS Plus had a failure rate of 2%, CoaLine 17% and the laboratory standard 4%. CoaguChek XS Plus received a better ease of use rating than CoaLine by the study personnel. Compared with the laboratory standard, there was considerable variability of the observed measurements with both devices. The measurements of CoaguChek XS Plus and the standard had a correlation coefficient r of being 0.79. CoaLine and the standard had a correlation coefficient r value of 0.72. CoaguChek XS Plus showed 'good' agreement, whereas CoaLine showed 'moderate' agreement compared with prothrombin time values using the standard method. The fast availability of results and the reduction of the required blood volume are advantages of point-of-care tests in the paediatric setting.

The clinical significance of differences between point-of-care and laboratory INR methods in over-anticoagulated patients

IntroductionPatients receiving warfarin are at increased risk of bleeding when their International Normalised Ratio (INR) >4.5. Although not standardised above 4.5 the INR is measured in over-anticoagulated patients, consequently we have examined the reliability of INR results ≥4.5. We assessed: the relationship between different prothrombin time systems for INRs >4.5; the relationships between the INR and levels of vitamin K-dependent coagulation factors (VKD-CF) and thrombin generation test (TGT) parameters; and the impact that variation in results would have on warfarin dosing. MethodsINRs were performed using a CoaguChek XS Plus point-of-care (POC) device (measuring range 0.6-8.0). For POC INRs ≥4.5, laboratory INRs were also measured using a recombinant tissue factor (rTF) and a rabbit brain (RBT) thromboplastin. ResultsThere was good correlation between POC (INR ≥4.5, <8.0) and Lab INRs (rTF n=154, rs=0.87, p<0.0001; RBT n=102, rs=0.76, p<0.0001); and significant correlations between each of the VKD-CF and the INR, the strongest being with FVII (POC INR rs=-0.53 p<0.0001; Lab rTF-INR rs=-0.70 p<0.0001). TGT peak thrombin and ETP also showed good correlations with INR values (R2>0.71). Using POC and Lab rTF-INR, 109/154 (71%), or POC and Lab RBT-INR 75/102 (74%) results exhibited dosage concordance and/or were within 0.5 INR units. In the remaining patients variation in warfarin dosing was generally slight. ConclusionsOur data suggest that CoaguChek XS Plus INRs >4.5 and <8.0 are comparable to laboratory INRs (both methods) and it is probably unnecessary to perform laboratory INRs for clinical management of patients with INRs >4.5 including those >8.0.

Comparison of International Normalized Ratios provided by two point-of-care devices and laboratory-based venipuncture in a pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic

The International Normalized Ratios (INRs) measured by two point-of-care (POC) devices were compared with those obtained via laboratory-based venipuncture. In an outpatient, pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic, 52 patients receiving oral warfarin therapy had their INR values measured using two POC devices, i-STAT PT/INR (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL) and CoaguChek XS Plus (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN). At the same visit, one venous blood sample was collected from each patient for INR measurement by the reference laboratory's instrumentation (STAGO, Diagnostica-Stago, Parsippany, NJ). Accuracy was evaluated by calculating the absolute difference for each set of INR values. Clinical correlation was defined as an INR measurement obtained by the POC devices that would have resulted in the same therapeutic decision as the INR value measured by the reference laboratory's instrumentation. Accuracy was superior with the CoaguChek XS Plus device. The absolute difference (mean ± S.D.) in the INR measurements obtained using STAGO versus CoaguChek XS Plus was 0.28 ± 0.31 (p < 0.0001). The absolute difference in INR values measured using STAGO and the i-STAT PT/INR device was 0.51 ± 0.44 (p < 0.0001). For clinical correlation, 17 (33%) of 52 INR measurements with the CoaguChek XS Plus were sufficiently different from the STAGO-measured INR values to have resulted in a different therapeutic decision (p < 0.001), compared with 28 (54%) of 52 with the i-STAT PT/INR (p < 0.001). INR measurements generated by POC devices exhibited positive bias, compared with laboratory-based venipuncture, for INR values at the high end of the INR range.

Comparison of emergency department point-of-care international normalised ratio (INR) testing with laboratory-based testing

BackgroundBedside international normalised ratio (INR) testing in emergency departments (ED) to assess for coagulopathies has not previously been examined.ObjectivesTo compare point-of-care INR (POCINR) testing in an ED with laboratory-based results...

Is perioperative point-of-care prothrombin time testing accurate compared to the standard laboratory test?

There is no accepted way of measuring prothrombin time without time loss for patients undergoing major surgery who are at risk of intraoperative dilution and consumption coagulopathy due to bleeding and volume replacement with crystalloids or colloids. Decisions to transfuse fresh frozen plasma and procoagulatory drugs have to rely on clinical judgment in these situations. Point-of-care devices are considerably faster than the standard laboratory methods. In this study we assessed the accuracy of a Point-of-care (PoC) device measuring prothrombin time compared to the standard laboratory method. Patients undergoing major surgery and intensive care unit patients were included. PoC prothrombin time was measured by CoaguChek XS Plus (Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland). PoC and reference tests were performed independently and interpreted under blinded conditions. Using a cut-off prothrombin time of 50%, we calculated diagnostic accuracy measures, plotted a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and tested for equivalence between the two methods. PoC sensitivity and specificity were 95% (95% CI 77%, 100%) and 95% (95% CI 91%, 98%) respectively. The negative likelihood ratio was 0.05 (95% CI 0.01, 0.32). The positive likelihood ratio was 19.57 (95% CI 10.62, 36.06). The area under the ROC curve was 0.988. Equivalence between the two methods was confirmed. CoaguChek XS Plus is a rapid and highly accurate test compared with the reference test. These findings suggest that PoC testing will be useful for monitoring intraoperative prothrombin time when coagulopathy is suspected. It could lead to a more rational use of expensive and limited blood bank resources.

Evaluation of the CoaguChek XS Plus system in a Swiss community setting

Evaluation of the CoaguChek XS Plus system in a Swiss community setting