Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Blood Med. 2010;1:57-60. doi: 10.2147/JBM.S8938. Epub 2010 May 3.

Differences in the INR evaluation of two different thromboplastins in patients with positivity to lupus anticoagulant in ongoing oral anticoagulation.

Author information

1
Thrombosis Center, Istituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, Rozzano (MI), Italy;

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

A possible interference between lupus anticoagulant (LAC), a well characterized clotting inhibitor, in the International Normalized Ratio (INR) determination during oral anticoagulation (OA) has been reported in the literature. Few data are available about the relationship between this kind of interference and the daily clinical management of oral anticoagulation. The aim of the study is to evaluate the role of two different thromboplastins-RecombiPlasTin 2G and HepatoComplex-in the determination of INR values of several patients' ongoing OA for a previous thrombotic disorder with and without positivity to LAC, and to evaluate possible interferences in the daily therapeutic approach.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

We selected 16 patients (13 females and 3 males, mean age 59 ± 16 years) with LAC positivity ongoing OA and 11 control subjects (7 females and 4 males, mean age 58 ± 14.5 years) with similar characteristics (ie, ethnic background and weight) with LAC negativity ongoing OA. 165 assays for INR determination were analyzed from both groups. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 10 software. P values were considered significant if <0.05.

RESULTS:

Mean values of INR for patients with LAC positivity were 3.79 ± 1.63 when tested with RecombiPlasTin 2G vs 3.18 ± 1.15 when tested with HepatoComplex (P < 0.001, s); while mean values of INR for patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) with LAC negativity were 3.54 ± 1.39 when tested with RecombiPlasTin 2G vs 3.23 ± 1.14 when tested with HepatoComplex (P < 0.002, s). An INR value > than 4.5 was found in 31/165 samples in 9 subjects, 8 patients with LAC positivity, and 1 control group subject with LAC negativity. There was a great difference in INR values in these subjects if we use the common thromboplastin (ie, RecombiPlasTin 2G) with a INR range varying from 5.14 ± 0.35 vs 3.79 ± 0.38 if we use another thromboplastin (ie, HepatoComplex) (P < 0.001, s). A change in the therapeutic approach for OA is possible in these cases because different INR values were obtained using different thromboplastins.

DISCUSSION:

Our data confirm that INR evaluation does not reveal significant changes also if tested with two different thromboplastins, for patients ongoing OA with and without LAC positivity, when the INR value is < than 4. Over this INR value there is a significant difference in patients with LAC positivity if we use a different thromboplastin for the INR determination. For this reason values obtained by RecombiPlasTin 2G need to be confirmed and matched with another thromboplastin (ie, HepatoComplex). This approach may be useful in order to have a good INR testing for the chronic long-term treatment with OA in particular in patients with LAC positivity.

KEYWORDS:

INR; long-term treatment; lupus anticoagulant; oral anticoagulation; prothrombin time; thromboplastin; thrombosis

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Dove Medical Press Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center