Ng V L, Valdes-Camin R, Gottfried E L, Echaves S A, Stead A G, Ebert R F
Department of Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, and San Francisco General Hospital, 94110, USA.
Am J Clin Pathol. 1998 Mar;109(3):338-46. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/109.3.338.
For determination of the international normalized ratio (INR), it has been suggested that "highly sensitive" thromboplastin reagents (International Sensitivity Index [ISI] < or = 1.2) provide the most consistent performance and minimize interlaboratory variability. We compared the INR values obtained from 69 specimens drawn from patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulant therapy, using four thromboplastin preparations (manufacturer-assigned ISI range of 0.96-1.10) and two automated photo-optical analyzers. Multivariate analysis of the INR response matrix (552 INR values) indicated that the eight reagent-coagulometer combinations did not produce equivalent INR values. Similar analysis indicated that INR values were not normalized when uncorrected prothrombin ratios or INR values, calculated after assignment of "local ISI values" to each thromboplastin reagent, were compared. The INR differences also seemed to be clinically significant because 17% to 29% of paired thromboplastin values were discordant when all INR values were assigned to one of four therapeutic categories used in oral anticoagulant therapy (< 2.0; 2.0-3.0; 3.0-4.5; or > 4.5). These differences in INR values obtained with two photo-optical coagulometers and four highly sensitive thromboplastin reagents suggest that the existing INR system has not achieved the goal of standardized prothrombin time values and does not support the recommendation to use only highly sensitive reagents for the regulation of oral anticoagulant therapy.
为了测定国际标准化比值(INR),有人建议使用“高灵敏度”凝血活酶试剂(国际敏感度指数[ISI]≤1.2),其性能最为稳定,可将实验室间的变异性降至最低。我们比较了从接受长期口服抗凝治疗的患者采集的69份标本的INR值,使用了四种凝血活酶制剂(厂家指定的ISI范围为0.96 - 1.10)和两台自动光电分析仪。对INR反应矩阵(552个INR值)进行多变量分析表明,这八种试剂 - 凝血仪组合并未产生相同的INR值。类似分析表明,当比较未校正的凝血酶原比值或在为每种凝血活酶试剂指定“本地ISI值”后计算出的INR值时,INR值并未标准化。INR差异似乎也具有临床意义,因为当将所有INR值归入口服抗凝治疗中使用的四个治疗类别之一(<2.0;2.0 - 3.0;3.0 - 4.5;或>4.5)时,17%至29%的配对凝血活酶值不一致。用两台光电凝血仪和四种高灵敏度凝血活酶试剂获得的INR值存在这些差异,表明现有的INR系统尚未实现凝血酶原时间值标准化的目标,也不支持仅使用高灵敏度试剂来调整口服抗凝治疗的建议。