Premium
Comparison of local International Sensitivity Index calibration and ‘Direct INR’ methods in correction of locally reported International Normalized Ratios: an international study
Author(s) -
POLLER L.,
KEOWN M.,
IBRAHIM S.,
VAN DEN BESSELAAR A. M. H. P.,
ROBERTS C.,
STEVENSON K.,
TRIPODI A.,
PATTISON A.,
JESPERSEN J.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of thrombosis and haemostasis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.947
H-Index - 178
eISSN - 1538-7836
pISSN - 1538-7933
DOI - 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02452.x
Subject(s) - calibration , medicine , prothrombin time , surgery , mathematics , statistics
Summary. Background: It is no longer feasible to check local International Normalized Ratios (INR) by the World Health Organization International Sensitivity Index (ISI) calibrations because the necessary manual prothrombin time technique required has generally been discarded. Objectives: An international collaborative study at 77 centers has compared local INR correction using the two alternative methods recommended in the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis guidelines: local ISI calibration and ‘Direct INR’. Methods: Success of INR correction by local ISI calibration and with Direct INR was assessed with a set of 27 certified lyophilized plasmas (20 from patients on warfarin and seven from normals). Results: At 49 centers using human thromboplastins, 3.0% initial average local INR deviation from certified INR was reduced by local ISI calibration to 0.7%, and at 25 centers using rabbit reagents, from 15.9% to 7.5%. With a minority of commercial thromboplastins, mainly ‘combined’ rabbit reagents, INR correction was not achieved by local ISI calibration. However, when rabbit combined reagents were excluded the overall mean INR deviation after correction was reduced further to 3.9%. In contrast, with Direct INR, mean deviation using human thromboplastins increased from 3.0% to 6.6%, but there was some reduction with rabbit reagents from 15.9% to 10% (12.3% with combined reagents excluded). Conclusions: Local ISI calibration gave INR correction for the majority of PT systems but failed at the small number using combined rabbit reagents suggesting a need for a combined reference thromboplastin. Direct INR correction was disappointing but better than local ISI calibration with combined rabbit reagents. Interlaboratory variability was improved by both procedures with human reagents only.