American journal of nephrology · 2021
Comparison of Sampling Methods for International Normalized Ratio Monitoring in Haemodialysis Patients (INRHaemo Study).
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rajkumar Theepika, Wong Jeffrey, Harvey Michael, Weidersehn Lachlan, Surmon Laura, Makris Angela
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Haemorrhagic and thrombotic complications are common in dialysis patients on warfarin; thus, accurate international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring is critical. For expediency and patient comfort, blood sampling from the haemodialysis access or circuit is commonly performed. Point-of-care (POC) INR machines allow both peripheral vein preservation and rapid results, yet are not validated in the haemodialysis population.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study in haemodialysis patients taking warfarin was undertaken. Three paired samples were drawn over a single session: peripheral blood INR, POC INR, and dialysis INR. Agreement using Bland-Altman analysis and correlation coefficients between the peripheral blood INR, haemodialysis INR, and POC INR were calculated. Inappropriate dosing decisions based on haemodialysis or POC INR were quantified.
RESULTS: Amongst 34 patients, agreement between the dialysis INR and peripheral blood INR was high, with the haemodialysis INR differing from the peripheral INR by <±0.2, 85.2% of the time. Correlation between the 2 methods was high (r = 0.914; p < 0.001). POC INR differed from peripheral INR values by <±0.2, 67.6% of the time, with less agreement at higher INR values. Dosing decisions were incongruent between the dialysis and peripheral INR in 6%, whilst the POC and peripheral INR disagreed in 26%.
CONCLUSIONS: There was good agreement and correlation between the peripheral blood, haemodialysis access/circuit, and POC INR values. POC INR was less reliable at higher values, and dosing decisions differed from the peripheral INR in a quarter of cases.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study in haemodialysis patients taking warfarin was undertaken. Three paired samples were drawn over a single session: peripheral blood INR, POC INR, and dialysis INR. Agreement using Bland-Altman analysis and correlation coefficients between the peripheral blood INR, haemodialysis INR, and POC INR were calculated. Inappropriate dosing decisions based on haemodialysis or POC INR were quantified.
RESULTS: Amongst 34 patients, agreement between the dialysis INR and peripheral blood INR was high, with the haemodialysis INR differing from the peripheral INR by <±0.2, 85.2% of the time. Correlation between the 2 methods was high (r = 0.914; p < 0.001). POC INR differed from peripheral INR values by <±0.2, 67.6% of the time, with less agreement at higher INR values. Dosing decisions were incongruent between the dialysis and peripheral INR in 6%, whilst the POC and peripheral INR disagreed in 26%.
CONCLUSIONS: There was good agreement and correlation between the peripheral blood, haemodialysis access/circuit, and POC INR values. POC INR was less reliable at higher values, and dosing decisions differed from the peripheral INR in a quarter of cases.