|
|
||||||||
Letters to the Editor |
1 European Action on Anticoagulation, Central Facility, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
2 Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Ribe County Hospital in Esbjerg, Esbjerg, Denmark
3 Bianchi Bonomi Hemophilia and, Thrombosis Centre, University and Instituto di Ricovero e, Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Maggiore Hospital, Milan, Italy
aAddress correspondence to this author at: European Action on Anticoagulation, Central Facility, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, 3.239 Stopford Bldg., Oxford Rd., Manchester M13 9PT, United Kingdom. Fax 44-161-275-5316; e-mail ecaa@manchester.ac.uk.
| The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below. |
To the Editor:
The European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation (ECAA) includes the founder and former long-term organizer of the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme (NEQAS) and the WHO International External Quality Assessment Scheme in blood coagulation as well as current European national external quality assessment (EQA) organizers.
We strongly endorse the 2 main points made by Kitchen and his UK NEQAS colleagues, that EQA for point-of-care international normalized ratio (INR) devices should be mandatory and caution is required when interpreting data from lyophilized plasma samples analyzed with whole blood prothrombin time (PT) monitors. During the past several years, the ECAA and its successor, European Action on Anticoagulation (EAA), have published data on both of these concerns in more than 60 reports, including 4 in Clinical Chemistry.
With regard to plasma/whole blood differences, the ECAA initially studied the reliability of use of plasma samples in calibrating the CoaguChek monitor (1) with an international sensitivity
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |