Dataset Information

Data documenting the performance of the PT/INR line correction method for reconciling INR discrepancies between central laboratory coagulation analyzers using different thromboplastins during the evaluation of a portable Coagulometer.

ABSTRACT: The data presented here was produced as part of an evaluation of the performance of the CoaguChek XS point-of-care coagulation analyzer, which is discussed in the research article "POCT PT INR - Is it adequate for Patient Care? A Comparison of the Roche Coaguchek XS vs. Stago Star vs. Siemens BCS in Patients Routinely Seen in an Anticoagulation Clinic" (Baker et al., in press) [1]. An effort to reconcile discrepancies in the patient INR result distributions from different central lab instruments (Stago Star and Siemens BCS) with the PT/INR line method is described (Poller et al., 2010, 2011; Ibrahim et al., 2011) [2], [3], [4]. While regression analysis of the ECAA Poller calibrant data provided a linear PT/INR line for all methods, Pearson's chi-squared and one-way repeated measures ANOVA analyses showed that central lab INR measurements continued to exhibit measurement site dependence after the PT/INR line correction was applied. According to paired t-test analysis, only the human thromboplastin dependent methods (CoaguChek XS and Siemens BCS both before and after PT/INR line correction) showed statistically significant agreement (p-value >0.05).

SUBMITTER: Baker WS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5711667 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Data documenting the performance of the PT/INR line correction method for reconciling INR discrepancies between central laboratory coagulation analyzers using different thromboplastins during the evaluation of a portable Coagulometer.

Baker Wendy S WS Albright Kathleen J KJ Spratt Heidi H Berman Megan M Mann Peggy A PA Unabia Jaime J Petersen John R JR

Data in brief 20171107

The data presented here was produced as part of an evaluation of the performance of the CoaguChek XS point-of-care coagulation analyzer, which is discussed in the research article "POCT PT INR - Is it adequate for Patient Care? A Comparison of the Roche Coaguchek XS vs. Stago Star vs. Siemens BCS in Patients Routinely Seen in an Anticoagulation Clinic" (Baker et al., in press) [1]. An effort to reconcile discrepancies in the patient INR result distributions from different central lab instruments ...[more]

PMID: 29204476

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Trauma-induced coagulopathy is a major driver of mortality following severe injury. Viscoelastic goal-directed resuscitation can reduce mortality after injury. The TEG 5000 system is widely used for viscoelastic testing. However, the TEG 6s system incorporates newer technology, with encouraging results in cardiovascular interventions. The purpose of this study was to validate the TEG 6s system for use in trauma patients. METHODS:Multicenter noninvasive observational study for method comparison conducted at 12 US Levels I and II trauma centers. Agreement between the TEG 6s and TEG 5000 systems was examined using citrated kaolin reaction time (CK.R), citrated functional fibrinogen maximum amplitude (CFF.MA), citrated kaolin percent clot lysis at 30 minutes (CK.LY30), citrated RapidTEG maximum amplitude (CRT.MA), and citrated kaolin maximum amplitude (CK.MA) parameters in adults meeting full or limited trauma team criteria. Blood was drawn ?1 hour after admission. Assays were repeated in duplicate. Reliability (TEG 5000 vs. TEG 6s analyzers) and repeatability (interdevice comparison) was quantified. Linear regression was used to define the relationship between TEG 6s and TEG 5000 devices. RESULTS:A total of 475 patients were enrolled. The cohort was predominantly male (68.6%) with a median age of 49 years. Regression line slope estimates (ß) and linear correlation estimates (p) were as follows: CK.R (ß = 1.05, ? = 0.9), CFF.MA (ß = 0.99, ? = 0.95), CK.LY30 (ß = 1.01, ? = 0.91), CRT.MA (TEG 6s) versus CK.MA (TEG 5000) (ß = 1.06, ? = 0.86) as well as versus CRT.MA (TEG 5000) (ß = 0.93, ? = 0.93), indicating strong reliability between the devices. Overall, within-device repeatability was better for TEG 6s versus TEG 5000, particularly for CFF.MA and CK.LY30. CONCLUSION:The TEG 6s device appears to be highly reliable for use in trauma patients, with close correlation to the TEG 5000 device and equivalent/improved within-device reliability. Given the potential advantages of using the TEG 6s device at the site of care, confirmation of agreement between the devices represents an important advance in diagnostic testing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Diagnostic test, level II.

Project description:BackgroundPost-market surveillance is a key regulatory function to prevent substandard and falsified (SF) medicines from being consumed by patients. Field deployable technologies offer the potential for rapid objective screening for SF medicines.Methods and findingsWe evaluated twelve devices: three near infrared spectrometers (MicroPHAZIR RX, NIR-S-G1, Neospectra 2.5), two Raman spectrometers (Progeny, TruScan RM), one mid-infrared spectrometer (4500a), one disposable colorimetric assay (Paper Analytical Devices, PAD), one disposable immunoassay (Rapid Diagnostic Test, RDT), one portable liquid chromatograph (C-Vue), one microfluidic system (PharmaChk), one mass spectrometer (QDa), and one thin layer chromatography kit (GPHF-Minilab). Each device was tested with a series of field collected medicines (FCM) along with simulated medicines (SIM) formulated in a laboratory. The FCM and SIM ranged from samples with good quality active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) concentrations, reduced concentrations of API (80% and 50% of the API), no API, and the wrong API. All the devices had high sensitivities (91.5 to 100.0%) detecting medicines with no API or the wrong API. However, the sensitivities of each device towards samples with 50% and 80% API varied greatly, from 0% to 100%. The infrared and Raman spectrometers had variable sensitivities for detecting samples with 50% and 80% API (from 5.6% to 50.0%). The devices with the ability to quantitate API (C-Vue, PharmaChk, QDa) had sensitivities ranging from 91.7% to 100% to detect all poor quality samples. The specificity was lower for the quantitative C-Vue, PharmaChk, & QDa (50.0% to 91.7%) than for all the other devices in this study (95.5% to 100%).ConclusionsThe twelve devices evaluated could detect medicines with the wrong or none of the APIs, consistent with falsified medicines, with high accuracy. However, API quantitation to detect formulations similar to those commonly found in substandards proved more difficult, requiring further technological innovation.

Dataset Information

Data documenting the performance of the PT/INR line correction method for reconciling INR discrepancies between central laboratory coagulation analyzers using different thromboplastins during the evaluation of a portable Coagulometer.

Publications

Data documenting the performance of the PT/INR line correction method for reconciling INR discrepancies between central laboratory coagulation analyzers using different thromboplastins during the evaluation of a portable Coagulometer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets