Guisado-Alonso D, Fayos-Vidal F, Martí-Fàbregas J, Prats-Sánchez L, Marín-Bueno R, Martínez-Domeño A, Delgado-Mederos R, Camps-Renom P
Unidad de Enfermedades Vasculares Cerebrales, Servicio de Neurología, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, IIB-Sant Pau, Barcelona, España.
Unidad de Enfermedades Vasculares Cerebrales, Servicio de Neurología, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, IIB-Sant Pau, Barcelona, España.
Neurologia (Engl Ed). 2020 Apr;35(3):155-159. doi: 10.1016/j.nrl.2017.07.017. Epub 2017 Sep 27.
Speed of administration conditions the effectiveness of intravenous fibrinolysis in treating acute ischaemic stroke. To reduce the risk of haemorrhagic complications, the intervention is contraindicated in certain cases, such as where the International Normalised Ratio (INR) is ≥ 1.7. This study aimed to determine the reliability of point-of-care INR readings (POC-INR) taken using the CoaguChek® XS portable coagulometer compared to laboratory results (L-INR).
We conducted a retrospective observational study of consecutive patients admitted to our centre with acute ischaemic stroke and who were treated with intravenous fibrinolysis, over a period of 4 years. Patients' INR was measured with a portable coagulometer and in the laboratory. Results were compared using the paired-sample t test; using L-INR results as a reference value, ROC analysis was performed to determine POC-INR with greater predictive value.
The study included 210 patients with a mean age of 74.3±11.5 years old; 18 (8.6%) were taking vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (OAC). There were no significant differences between the 2 INR measurements in the population as a whole (POC-INR-L-INR difference: 0.001±0.085; P=.82). In subgroup analysis, the results coincided for patients taking OACs (0.001±0.081; P=.42) and those with L-INR ≤ 1.2 (0.008±0.081; P=.16). For L-INR>1.2, however, the portable coagulometer underestimated INR (0.058±0.095; P=.01). Through ROC analysis, POC-INR < 1.6 was found to be the cut-off point with greatest sensitivity (100%) and specificity (98.97%) for identifying patients eligible for intravenous fibrinolysis (L-INR < 1.7).
POC-INR shows a good correlation with L-INR. Our results suggest that the best threshold to predict an L-INR < 1.7 is POC-INR < 1.6. Internal validation studies for POC-INR should be considered in all treatment centres.
给药速度决定了静脉溶栓治疗急性缺血性卒中的效果。为降低出血并发症的风险,在某些情况下,如国际标准化比值(INR)≥1.7时,该干预措施是禁忌的。本研究旨在确定使用CoaguChek® XS便携式凝血仪进行的即时检测INR读数(POC-INR)与实验室检测结果(L-INR)相比的可靠性。
我们对连续4年入住本中心并接受静脉溶栓治疗的急性缺血性卒中患者进行了一项回顾性观察研究。使用便携式凝血仪和实验室检测患者的INR。结果采用配对样本t检验进行比较;以L-INR结果作为参考值,进行ROC分析以确定具有更高预测价值的POC-INR。
该研究纳入了210例患者,平均年龄为74.3±11.5岁;18例(8.6%)正在服用维生素K拮抗剂口服抗凝剂(OAC)。总体人群中两种INR测量结果之间无显著差异(POC-INR-L-INR差值:0.001±0.085;P = 0.82)。在亚组分析中,服用OAC的患者(0.001±0.081;P = 0.42)和L-INR≤1.2的患者(0.008±0.081;P = 0.16)结果一致。然而,对于L-INR>1.2的患者,便携式凝血仪低估了INR(0.058±0.095;P = 0.01)。通过ROC分析,发现POC-INR < 1.6是识别符合静脉溶栓条件患者(L-INR < 1.7)的灵敏度(100%)和特异性(98.97%)最高的临界点。
POC-INR与L-INR显示出良好的相关性。我们的结果表明,预测L-INR < 1.7的最佳阈值是POC-INR < 1.6。所有治疗中心都应考虑对POC-INR进行内部验证研究。