Download PDF
Thromb Haemost 1994; 71(06): 727-730
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1642513
Review Article
Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart

Assessment of the Validity of the INR System for Patients with Liver Impairment

M J Kovacs
1   The Department of Hematology/Blood Bank, Victoria Hospital, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
3   The Department of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
,
A Wong
1   The Department of Hematology/Blood Bank, Victoria Hospital, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
3   The Department of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
,
K MacKinnon
1   The Department of Hematology/Blood Bank, Victoria Hospital, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
,
K Weir
1   The Department of Hematology/Blood Bank, Victoria Hospital, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
,
M Keeney
1   The Department of Hematology/Blood Bank, Victoria Hospital, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
,
E Boyle
4   The Departments of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
,
M Cruickshank
2   The Department of Hematology, University Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada
3   The Department of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 15 December 1993

Accepted after revision: 10 February 1994

Publication Date:
09 July 2018 (online)

  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Summary

The INR system was developed to standardize PT reporting in patients on oral anticoagulants. We prospectively collected blood samples from 29 patients with liver impairment (INR 1.5-3.5). Control patients were on warfarin (n = 31). PT’s were measured on an ACL-300 with three thromboplastin reagents. INR’s were calculated using instrument specific ISI’s. Other tests performed were FDP’s, fibrinogen, aPTT, factors II, V, VII and X. The INR’s for each patient in the study population using the three thromboplastin reagents were significantly different (p = 0.0001). Those for the control population were not (p = 0.0658). Fibrinogen, factors V, II and X were different at the 5% level of significance between the populations. FDP’s were detected in 17 study subjects. The INR system is not valid for comparison of patients with liver impairment because different reagents do not give the same INR for the same sample. It is, however, no less valid than the use of PT with different thromboplastin reagents. Further study is recommended.

 

  • References

  • 1 Quick AJ. The prothrombin time in haemophilia and in obstructive jaundice. J Biol Chem 1935; 109: 73-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hirsh J. Oral anticoagulant drugs. New Engl J Med 1991; 324: 1865-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bussey HI, Force RW, Bianco TM, Leonard AD. Reliance on prothrombin time ratios causes significant errors in anticoagulation therapy. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152: 278-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Becker DM, Humphries JE, Walker FB, DeMong LK, Bopp JS, Acker MN. Standardizing the prothrombin time: calibrating coagulation instruments as well as thromboplastin. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1993; 117: 602-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hirsh J. Substandard monitoring of warfarin in North America (editorial). Arch Intern Med 1992; 152: 257-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Triplett DA, Brandt J. International normalized ratios: has their time come (editorial). Arch Pathol Lab Med 1993; 117: 590-2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Loeliger EA. ICSH/ICTH Recommendations for reporting prothrombin time in oral anticoagulant control. Thromb Ilacmost 1985; 53: 155-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ansell JE. Imprecision of prothrombin time monitoring of oral anticoagulation. Am J Clin Pathol 1992; 98: 237-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ray MJ, Smith IR. The dependence of the international sensitivity index on the coagulomctcr used to perform the prothrombin time. Thromb Haemost 1990; 63: 424-9
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chantarangkul V, Tripodi A, Mannucci PM, Bonomi AB. The effect of instrumentation on thromboplastin calibration (letter). Thromb Haemost 1992; 67: 588-9
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kirkwood TB L. Calibration of reference thromboplastins and standardization of the prothrombin time ratio. Thromb Haemost 1983; 49: 238-14
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Loeliger EA, Poller L, Samama M, Thomson JM, Van den Besselaar AM H P, Vermylen J, Verstraete M. Questions and answers on prothrombin time standardization in oral anticoagulant control. Thromb Haemost 1985; 54: 515-7
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Poller L, Taberner DA. Dosage and control of oral anticoagulants: an international collaborative survey. Br J Haematol 1982; 51: 479-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mammen EF. Coagulation abnormalities in liver disease. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 1992; 6: 1247-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 van den Besselaar AM H P. Recommended method for reporting therapeutic control of oral anticoagulant therapy. Thromb Haemostas 1990; 63: 316-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Morrison DF. The analysis of a single sample at repeated measurements. Biometrics 1972; 28: 55-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Shott S. Statistics for Health Professionals. In: Jovanovich Inc. B, ed. Toronto: WB Saunders Company Hancourt; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Kovacs MJ, Keeney M, Chin-Yee I. Decreasing liver biopsy complications (letter). Ann Intern Med 1993; 119: 436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar