pellicle
Professional Dingbat, Guru and Merkintologist
I am pretty sure that most home testers are as concerned with testing accuracy as you, but perhaps not so much which meter is better than which...
A DIFFERENT Meter - Coagusense
- Thread starter Protimenow
- Start date
Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:
I am pretty sure that most home testers are as concerned with testing accuracy as you, but perhaps not so much which meter is better than which...
When I mentioned a website to the Nurse Practitioner at the clinic she laughed.....
I'll be starting another thread about the location for incisions (because I have doubts about how well the location that was used at my clinic would result in results that compare to tests on the finger tip), but here are my most recent results:
Coagu-Sense: 3.0
CoaguChek XS: 3.8
Clinic (Hemochron Pro Elite): 3.6
I have some doubts about the procedure used for the Hemochron -- so I don't have a lot of faith in the result.
I'll be starting another thread about the location for incisions (because I have doubts about how well the location that was used at my clinic would result in results that compare to tests on the finger tip), but here are my most recent results:
Coagu-Sense: 3.0
CoaguChek XS: 3.8
Clinic (Hemochron Pro Elite): 3.6
I have some doubts about the procedure used for the Hemochron -- so I don't have a lot of faith in the result.
pellicle
Professional Dingbat, Guru and Merkintologist
Out of interest, when you had this happen were you home testing? What frequency of testing were you using? What INR was reported on your last test?
A TIA or a stroke is something I wish to avoid.
Yes, I was home testing. I have been home testing since 2009. I finally got an InRatio in December 2010 and it was my primary meter until my TIA. (The ProTime is a bit harder to use, not as friendly, and requiring more blood, so my InRatio was my machine of choice). I also used the CoaguChek S occasionally, back when strips were available. I was testing weekly, until just a few weeks before my TIA.
My TIA was in April 2012. At the time, I had an InRatio that was my primary testing device. (I had a ProTime and ProTime 3, but relied on the accuracy of the InRatio and had no ProTime strips). I was also running low on InRatio strips and had no funds for another supply, so my testing frequency went from weekly to 10 days or 2 weeks.
I did not have the luxury of any medical care, no blood draws for years, and no clinic. I was completely on my own and relied on my meter's absolute accuracy. I also seemed (for some reason) to be comfortable in toe 2.0-3.5 range that they now advise. Two days before the TIA, my reported INR was 2.0 (and, for some reason that I can't understand, I didn't increase my warfarin dose). On the day of the TIA, my INR was 2.6. In the hospital, the next day, the lab reported a 1.7, the next day it was 1.6, and three days later, it was 1.78. I was given a prescription for Lovenox when I left the hospital on Day Two, and used it for two days.
My INR was back up, in the correct range, by my next test, five days after the TIA.
I didn't really start my quest for the most accurate meter until after I got back from the hospital -- and even then, for many months, all I had were a newer InRatio 2, the older InRatio, the ProTime and ProTime 3 (which didn't get much use), and the obsolete, unsupported CoaguChek S.
I was able to eventually get a Coag-Sense at a good price, and, just a few months ago, a CoaguChek XS at a good price. Other than that, I'd probably be like most of us here, trusting our lives to a meter of somewhat indeterminable accuracy with occasional lab tests.
My TIA was in April 2012. At the time, I had an InRatio that was my primary testing device. (I had a ProTime and ProTime 3, but relied on the accuracy of the InRatio and had no ProTime strips). I was also running low on InRatio strips and had no funds for another supply, so my testing frequency went from weekly to 10 days or 2 weeks.
I did not have the luxury of any medical care, no blood draws for years, and no clinic. I was completely on my own and relied on my meter's absolute accuracy. I also seemed (for some reason) to be comfortable in toe 2.0-3.5 range that they now advise. Two days before the TIA, my reported INR was 2.0 (and, for some reason that I can't understand, I didn't increase my warfarin dose). On the day of the TIA, my INR was 2.6. In the hospital, the next day, the lab reported a 1.7, the next day it was 1.6, and three days later, it was 1.78. I was given a prescription for Lovenox when I left the hospital on Day Two, and used it for two days.
My INR was back up, in the correct range, by my next test, five days after the TIA.
I didn't really start my quest for the most accurate meter until after I got back from the hospital -- and even then, for many months, all I had were a newer InRatio 2, the older InRatio, the ProTime and ProTime 3 (which didn't get much use), and the obsolete, unsupported CoaguChek S.
I was able to eventually get a Coag-Sense at a good price, and, just a few months ago, a CoaguChek XS at a good price. Other than that, I'd probably be like most of us here, trusting our lives to a meter of somewhat indeterminable accuracy with occasional lab tests.
I'm scheduled to have a blood draw in an hour or so. I didn't want my INR, as determined by the lab, to be slightly higher than 3.5. On Monday (36 hours ago), I dropped my daily dose from 7.5 to 6. Yesterday, just to get an approximate idea of what my blood draw MAY be close to, I tested with a CoaguChek XS. I figured that, historically, the XS was slightly higher than the lab, so if the INR reported by the XS is in range, so would the lab.
Yesterday, the XS reported an INR of 3.1. I figured that I was home free. I took my usual 7.5 mg last night, and tested again, in anticipation of the blood draw. I used a possibly improved technique, with a separate incision and different location for each test.
Here's what I got:
Coag-Sense: INR 2.8, Prothrombin time: 33.9
CoaguChek XS: INR 3.5, Prothrombin time: 42.6
Partially out of curiosity - because I know that the InRatio usually gives a higher result than the XS, I tested with the InRatio 2
InRatio 2 : INR 3.8, Prothrombin time: 38.3
---
I'm going to the lab, fairly comfortable that my INR will be somewhere between 3.5 and 2.8. I've given up on expecting accurate results from the InRatio. (FWIW: I applied the algorithm that was developed for predicting lab values from InRatio numbers, and got an INR of 3.11. If this formula actually works reliably, it may be something that Alere should consider building in to their meters).
I'll report the lab results once I get them. (My clinic usually doesn't call me when I'm in Range, so I may have to call multiple times to get my value)
Yesterday, the XS reported an INR of 3.1. I figured that I was home free. I took my usual 7.5 mg last night, and tested again, in anticipation of the blood draw. I used a possibly improved technique, with a separate incision and different location for each test.
Here's what I got:
Coag-Sense: INR 2.8, Prothrombin time: 33.9
CoaguChek XS: INR 3.5, Prothrombin time: 42.6
Partially out of curiosity - because I know that the InRatio usually gives a higher result than the XS, I tested with the InRatio 2
InRatio 2 : INR 3.8, Prothrombin time: 38.3
---
I'm going to the lab, fairly comfortable that my INR will be somewhere between 3.5 and 2.8. I've given up on expecting accurate results from the InRatio. (FWIW: I applied the algorithm that was developed for predicting lab values from InRatio numbers, and got an INR of 3.11. If this formula actually works reliably, it may be something that Alere should consider building in to their meters).
I'll report the lab results once I get them. (My clinic usually doesn't call me when I'm in Range, so I may have to call multiple times to get my value)
Last edited:
I just got the results of my blood draw last week -- approximately 90 minutes after the three tests that I ran last week.
The lab result was 3.43. I'm still somewhat at a loss to how they can state this with so much presumed accuracy.
The result was closest to the 3.5 that the CoaguChek XS gave me (a 3.5). The doctor who gave me the result said that it was slightly above my range -- he concluded that my range is 2.0 - 3.0. Apparently, some nimrod believes that ALL aortic valves should be in 2.0 - 3.0, not realizing that, with an acceptable error of up to .3, a '2.0' on a meter could actually be a 1.7 -- stroke territory. They also seem to believe that all mechanical valves have the same risk - regardless of whether it's a new valve or one that was implanted 30 years ago. I'll stick to 2.5-3.5, thank you.
The apparent lack of agreement with the lab tests doesn't worry me -- I'm in range. I still have faith in the Coag-Sense even if it reported a 2.8, because of the testing method designed into the meter. I have faith in the CoaguChek XS, even if the results always seem to be higher than the lab or the Coag-Sense. I'm not quite as comfortable with the InRatio -- I think that it consistently reports higher than labs.
My concerns about my own anticoagulation keep me away from the 2.0 range, if possible. A 2.0 on an InRatio would be a red flag for me -- I'd increase my dose right away. A 2.0 on the other meters wouldn't concern me as much.
Bottom Line -- and perhaps the end of this thread for a while -- I trust the Coag-Sense. It didn't take long to learn to use it. The CoaguChek XS is also a meter to be trusted. The CoaguChek XS seems to report higher than Coag-Sense or labs. I have a bit more of an issue with the InRatio and InRatio 2 -- it seems to be higher than the labs - sometimes considerably higher. Given a choice, because my biggest fear is an INR near 2.0, I would opt for the Coag-Sense BECAUSE it reports lower values than the other meters (and usually lower than the labs). This way, I can be fairly confident that a 2.0 from the Coag-Sense means that my INR would be equal to or higher than an actual 2.0, and I wouldn't have to be too concerned about a TIA.
If anything new comes up, I may update this thread but for now, I'm thinking that this may be a semi-final word relating to this new meter.
The lab result was 3.43. I'm still somewhat at a loss to how they can state this with so much presumed accuracy.
The result was closest to the 3.5 that the CoaguChek XS gave me (a 3.5). The doctor who gave me the result said that it was slightly above my range -- he concluded that my range is 2.0 - 3.0. Apparently, some nimrod believes that ALL aortic valves should be in 2.0 - 3.0, not realizing that, with an acceptable error of up to .3, a '2.0' on a meter could actually be a 1.7 -- stroke territory. They also seem to believe that all mechanical valves have the same risk - regardless of whether it's a new valve or one that was implanted 30 years ago. I'll stick to 2.5-3.5, thank you.
The apparent lack of agreement with the lab tests doesn't worry me -- I'm in range. I still have faith in the Coag-Sense even if it reported a 2.8, because of the testing method designed into the meter. I have faith in the CoaguChek XS, even if the results always seem to be higher than the lab or the Coag-Sense. I'm not quite as comfortable with the InRatio -- I think that it consistently reports higher than labs.
My concerns about my own anticoagulation keep me away from the 2.0 range, if possible. A 2.0 on an InRatio would be a red flag for me -- I'd increase my dose right away. A 2.0 on the other meters wouldn't concern me as much.
Bottom Line -- and perhaps the end of this thread for a while -- I trust the Coag-Sense. It didn't take long to learn to use it. The CoaguChek XS is also a meter to be trusted. The CoaguChek XS seems to report higher than Coag-Sense or labs. I have a bit more of an issue with the InRatio and InRatio 2 -- it seems to be higher than the labs - sometimes considerably higher. Given a choice, because my biggest fear is an INR near 2.0, I would opt for the Coag-Sense BECAUSE it reports lower values than the other meters (and usually lower than the labs). This way, I can be fairly confident that a 2.0 from the Coag-Sense means that my INR would be equal to or higher than an actual 2.0, and I wouldn't have to be too concerned about a TIA.
If anything new comes up, I may update this thread but for now, I'm thinking that this may be a semi-final word relating to this new meter.
pellicle
Professional Dingbat, Guru and Merkintologist
Hi
3.43 and 3.5 seem pretty close to me
Might be worth me following up on that.
3.43 and 3.5 seem pretty close to me
I recall that 0.3 can be found between labs anyway.
Might be worth me following up on that.
Yes. 3.43 and 3.5 are AWFULLY CLOSE. And, yes, depending on the lab used, there CAN be considerable variances. I'm comfortable with the CoaguChek XS and Coag-Sense and, perhaps, with the InRatio - knowing that the InRatio ALWAYS seems to be about 10-30% (or so) higher than the lab.
This is just another minor update.
A few weeks ago, it was so hot where I stored the meter and strips that I got a 'too hot' error on the meter. I didn't have a problem getting a value from the CoaguChek XS - which doesn't rely on body temperature meter and strips (apparently), or can adjust if the strip and meter are too hot. The Coag-Sense uses a reagent that requires body temperature, and can WARM the strip to body temperature, but can't COOL it down to body temperature.
Yesterday, with a blood draw planned for later in the day, I took my blood with the Coag-Sense and the CoaguChek XS. I rarely test with the InRatio, because it always seems to give results that vary from too high to too damned high. Based on a difference between the Coag-Sense and the CoaguChek XS, and the fact that I was going to get a blood draw anyway, I also tested using the InRatio 2. (I was going to also test with the ProTime, but haven't yet).
Here are the results:
Coag-Sense: 2.4
CoaguChek XS: 3.4
InRatio 2: 4.1
I don't have the lab results but should have them in a few days.
Based on previous comparisons, I'm expecting that the lab result will be somewhere around 2-9 - 3.1. The Coag-Sense and CoaguChek XS are sometimes closer, but even without a lab test, I'm comfortable in assuming that the Coag-Sense may be reporting a bit lower than the lab (so I'm happy with a 2.4), and the CoaguChek XS may be a bit higher, but possibly closer, to the lab result. The 4.1 from the InRatio 2 doesn't really concern me -- I don't worry that an InRatio 4.1 really puts me much above my range (2.5 - 3.5), if at all. (Also - if I subtract 30% from the InRatio 2, that puts my INR at 2.9 - mid-range - but I don't think that self-testers should have to make these calculations in order to detect their actual values)
I'll report back in a few days when I get the lab results. (The clinic usually requires many phone calls to give me my INR UNLESS it's out of range. I don't expect to hear from them unless I call to nag)
A few weeks ago, it was so hot where I stored the meter and strips that I got a 'too hot' error on the meter. I didn't have a problem getting a value from the CoaguChek XS - which doesn't rely on body temperature meter and strips (apparently), or can adjust if the strip and meter are too hot. The Coag-Sense uses a reagent that requires body temperature, and can WARM the strip to body temperature, but can't COOL it down to body temperature.
Yesterday, with a blood draw planned for later in the day, I took my blood with the Coag-Sense and the CoaguChek XS. I rarely test with the InRatio, because it always seems to give results that vary from too high to too damned high. Based on a difference between the Coag-Sense and the CoaguChek XS, and the fact that I was going to get a blood draw anyway, I also tested using the InRatio 2. (I was going to also test with the ProTime, but haven't yet).
Here are the results:
Coag-Sense: 2.4
CoaguChek XS: 3.4
InRatio 2: 4.1
I don't have the lab results but should have them in a few days.
Based on previous comparisons, I'm expecting that the lab result will be somewhere around 2-9 - 3.1. The Coag-Sense and CoaguChek XS are sometimes closer, but even without a lab test, I'm comfortable in assuming that the Coag-Sense may be reporting a bit lower than the lab (so I'm happy with a 2.4), and the CoaguChek XS may be a bit higher, but possibly closer, to the lab result. The 4.1 from the InRatio 2 doesn't really concern me -- I don't worry that an InRatio 4.1 really puts me much above my range (2.5 - 3.5), if at all. (Also - if I subtract 30% from the InRatio 2, that puts my INR at 2.9 - mid-range - but I don't think that self-testers should have to make these calculations in order to detect their actual values)
I'll report back in a few days when I get the lab results. (The clinic usually requires many phone calls to give me my INR UNLESS it's out of range. I don't expect to hear from them unless I call to nag)
pellicle
Professional Dingbat, Guru and Merkintologist
Interestingly the large semi government one I used to use back in Australia used to send an SMS with the results.
The clinic that I use seems to give the patients zero credit for intelligence. When I asked about a login or some other way to get my records, they actually LAUGHED. Apparently, their systems are only for internal use, and patients have no access. The idea of an SMS is completely foreign to them.
Ola Thoresen
Well-known member
Re: A DIFFERENT Meter - Coagusense
Just came out of the clinic, after having a blood draw.
Literally 2 minutes after I was in the lab, I did a test with my CoaguCheck XS as well.
The CoaguCheck showed 2.8
The lab result was 3.0
I have been pretty stable between 2.3 and 2.6 for a while now with a small peak today (I usually check my INR every Sunday, and take a slightly higher dose of Warfarin on Mondays so that might explain it)
I'll probably keep going here about every 6 months or so to verify that the home testing is still ok. But so far I must say I really trust the CoaguCheck to keep me within range as long as I self test once a week.
Just came out of the clinic, after having a blood draw.
Literally 2 minutes after I was in the lab, I did a test with my CoaguCheck XS as well.
The CoaguCheck showed 2.8
The lab result was 3.0
I have been pretty stable between 2.3 and 2.6 for a while now with a small peak today (I usually check my INR every Sunday, and take a slightly higher dose of Warfarin on Mondays so that might explain it)
I'll probably keep going here about every 6 months or so to verify that the home testing is still ok. But so far I must say I really trust the CoaguCheck to keep me within range as long as I self test once a week.
The few times I had blood draws, after I got my CoaguChek XS, the results were pretty close. Confirmation that my INR was in range was the primary comfort point in all of this. I'm not sure of your reasoning behind the 'slightly higher dose' on Mondays -- any spike will dissipate in a few days. If you want to slightly elevate your INR, you should probably consider your 'slightly higher' dose at least twice a week.
Personally, with my St. Jude Aortic valve, I'd be happy if my INR didn't drop below 2.5 or climb too far above 3.5. The CoaguChek XS and Coag-Sense seem to be fairly accurate tools that help me to keep my INR in range.
How was your clinic able to give you your INR results so quickly? Is it possible that they take your drawn blood behind a curtain and test it with a CoaguChek XS or some other meter, rather than running the 'lab' tests on it? (There are meters, like the Hemochron and the ProTime meters that can test blood that has been drawn, in addition to being able to test the capillary blood from a finger -- these will provide results within a few minutes).
Personally, with my St. Jude Aortic valve, I'd be happy if my INR didn't drop below 2.5 or climb too far above 3.5. The CoaguChek XS and Coag-Sense seem to be fairly accurate tools that help me to keep my INR in range.
How was your clinic able to give you your INR results so quickly? Is it possible that they take your drawn blood behind a curtain and test it with a CoaguChek XS or some other meter, rather than running the 'lab' tests on it? (There are meters, like the Hemochron and the ProTime meters that can test blood that has been drawn, in addition to being able to test the capillary blood from a finger -- these will provide results within a few minutes).
Ola Thoresen
Well-known member
I count my dose by the week, not by day, and I add (or subtract) about 10% of my current dose when I adjust. My range is supposed to be 2 - 3, and I adjust up or down if I am getting below 2.5 or above 3.5. I prefer to stay safe.
And I can't be bothered to divide the pills, which means I often don't take the same amount every single day.
Right now my dose is 23 pills a week, which give me 5 days of 3 and two days (monday and friday) of 4.
So usually I test at home Sunday around noon - which is more than 48 hours after I take the bigger dose (early Friday morning). Todays test was at tuesday, which was just above 24 hours after a bigger dose (Monday morning).
I don't know if that was what caused the INR to be a bit higher today than it has been for the last months, but it could be. It could of course also be something I have eaten or other reasons.
I do not know what kind of testing equipment they use here, but it is a regular hospital that do all kind of medical operations, and they have a fully equipped lab. If they actually use a CoaguCheck I guess it is worth trusting it. Usually they have the test result redy after about 30-45 minutes.
My main point of posting the result here was to just bring my numbers in along with yours, because I believe home testing is still quite new, and the more people who compare their own results with a 3. party at regular intervals, the more data we have to assure ourselves that what we do is safe.
So thanks a lot for all the info you have given in this thread. It sure gives me more trust in my own home testing.
And I can't be bothered to divide the pills, which means I often don't take the same amount every single day.
Right now my dose is 23 pills a week, which give me 5 days of 3 and two days (monday and friday) of 4.
So usually I test at home Sunday around noon - which is more than 48 hours after I take the bigger dose (early Friday morning). Todays test was at tuesday, which was just above 24 hours after a bigger dose (Monday morning).
I don't know if that was what caused the INR to be a bit higher today than it has been for the last months, but it could be. It could of course also be something I have eaten or other reasons.
I do not know what kind of testing equipment they use here, but it is a regular hospital that do all kind of medical operations, and they have a fully equipped lab. If they actually use a CoaguCheck I guess it is worth trusting it. Usually they have the test result redy after about 30-45 minutes.
My main point of posting the result here was to just bring my numbers in along with yours, because I believe home testing is still quite new, and the more people who compare their own results with a 3. party at regular intervals, the more data we have to assure ourselves that what we do is safe.
So thanks a lot for all the info you have given in this thread. It sure gives me more trust in my own home testing.
I trust home monitoring. I've found that, if I take different doses on different days, the INRs will also vary as a result. That's why, if you usually test on the same day each week, a test on a different day may be higher or lower - it reflects the anticoagulant effects of a slightly different dose in your system. There may be no adjustment needed.
If your hospital lab is efficient - running the test soon after the blood is drawn - it is very likely that you have your result quite quickly. It doesn't take long to do an INR in a lab -- the usual problem is waiting for the lab to run it.
I'm glad to hear that you're in range. I wouldn't be too concerned with variances from day to day, or from lab and meter. For myself, my main goal is to be confident that I am in in range - and that my INR doesn't drop BELOW range. The rest is just slight numerical variations.
Thanks for posting.
If your hospital lab is efficient - running the test soon after the blood is drawn - it is very likely that you have your result quite quickly. It doesn't take long to do an INR in a lab -- the usual problem is waiting for the lab to run it.
I'm glad to hear that you're in range. I wouldn't be too concerned with variances from day to day, or from lab and meter. For myself, my main goal is to be confident that I am in in range - and that my INR doesn't drop BELOW range. The rest is just slight numerical variations.
Thanks for posting.
I just wanted to clarify to other people reading this thread that you are indeed using the Coaguchek XS model of home monitor.
Your monitor result of 2.8 compared to the lab result of 3.0 is what I would call 'perfect'. ( the home monitor's acceptable variance is .2 )
Enjoy !
If it's a CoaguChek, it would have to be an XS. Roche discontinued support for the S last year, and I believe this to have been done worldwide. I don't think that you can even get strips for the S in third world countries.
I finally got the lab result for my test on 9/11 - about an hour after self-testing using the CoaguChek XS and the Coag-Sense.
What I'm seeing is something of a trend -- the Coag-Sense is lower than lab results, and the CoaguChek XS is higher. The lab results are somewhere in between.
Here's the 9/11 trio:
Coag-Sense: 2.4
CoaguChek XS: 3.4
Hospital Lab: 2,92 (almost smack dab in the center between the two).
In any case, I was in range -- pretty much in the middle of the range, according to the lab, but comfortably in range based on both meters.
Last night, I had surprisingly high numbers:
Coag-Sense: 3.5
CoaguChek XS: 4.4
My conclusion is that the wine that I've had with lunch the past day or two may have driven my INR up a bit. Other factors seem to have been unchanged.
I was thinking about slightly dropping my dose, but don't think that I will. I had salad for lunch this afternoon, and no wine with lunch. I don't plan on having wine tonight, either.
I am pretty sure that my INR is probably around 3,9 or so -- not enough to worry about, but perhaps enough to be just a bit more careful than usual when it comes to bumps and bruises and possible interaction with sharp objects. The greens will also help to bring the INR down.
----
FWIW -- I think that I may have had my last blood draw for a while. The anticoagulation clinic - whose value was in the delivery of my monthly INRs based on a blood draw - will start costing me $80 each visit. To me, it's not worth it. I'd rather test weekly with my own meter(s) than to rely on a clinic with an obsolete protocol. I will be able to get my warfarin - and if I have any problems getting a prescription, I may resort to foreign sources (although I don't think this will be necessary).
I feel a lot safer self-managing, based on weekly tests than I would be to rely on a clinic that is satisfied with testing once a month. And I will probably test with the Coag-Sense and the CoaguChek XS and figure that my actual INR is somewhere between the values reported by the two meters.
(BTW: I still have a second Coag-Sense for sale, in case anyone is interested. If you ARE interested, just send me a private message and we can go from there).
What I'm seeing is something of a trend -- the Coag-Sense is lower than lab results, and the CoaguChek XS is higher. The lab results are somewhere in between.
Here's the 9/11 trio:
Coag-Sense: 2.4
CoaguChek XS: 3.4
Hospital Lab: 2,92 (almost smack dab in the center between the two).
In any case, I was in range -- pretty much in the middle of the range, according to the lab, but comfortably in range based on both meters.
Last night, I had surprisingly high numbers:
Coag-Sense: 3.5
CoaguChek XS: 4.4
My conclusion is that the wine that I've had with lunch the past day or two may have driven my INR up a bit. Other factors seem to have been unchanged.
I was thinking about slightly dropping my dose, but don't think that I will. I had salad for lunch this afternoon, and no wine with lunch. I don't plan on having wine tonight, either.
I am pretty sure that my INR is probably around 3,9 or so -- not enough to worry about, but perhaps enough to be just a bit more careful than usual when it comes to bumps and bruises and possible interaction with sharp objects. The greens will also help to bring the INR down.
----
FWIW -- I think that I may have had my last blood draw for a while. The anticoagulation clinic - whose value was in the delivery of my monthly INRs based on a blood draw - will start costing me $80 each visit. To me, it's not worth it. I'd rather test weekly with my own meter(s) than to rely on a clinic with an obsolete protocol. I will be able to get my warfarin - and if I have any problems getting a prescription, I may resort to foreign sources (although I don't think this will be necessary).
I feel a lot safer self-managing, based on weekly tests than I would be to rely on a clinic that is satisfied with testing once a month. And I will probably test with the Coag-Sense and the CoaguChek XS and figure that my actual INR is somewhere between the values reported by the two meters.
(BTW: I still have a second Coag-Sense for sale, in case anyone is interested. If you ARE interested, just send me a private message and we can go from there).
I haven't followed this thread very closely, but it appears the spread between the Coag-sense and Coaguchek XS, in the previous post, seems pretty broad(2.4-3.4 and 3.5-4.4). That much spread would make me uncomfortable and uncertain as to the accuracy of one of those meters. About one year ago I purchased a new INRatio2 and began to home test weekly. My doc who uses the Coaguchek XS insists that I come in to their office for a monthly "stic". Over the past year I have run my own trial(sixteen tests) between the two meters(tested at home and an hour later at my docs office) and have found that the INRatio2 and Coaguchek XS vary only about +/- .2...usually the INRatio2 is .2 less than the Coaguchek XS. I am comfortable, because of the small variance, that either of these meters is giving me an accurate result and I am discontinuing home testing on the day I go to my docs office....no sense throwing $4 away.
pellicle
Professional Dingbat, Guru and Merkintologist
Hi
Interesting. In this case (assuming all things being equal which they seldom are) I'd be willing to make the stab that the lab was right and the results varied a bit either side.
The problem is that I've seen the other result sets and it doesn't really fit that pattern to my memory ... perplexing isn't it.
being a consistent drinker (a glass most nights of the week) but not a heavy drinker (in that its one glass most nights) I suppose evens out my testing observations.
<shrug />
what? come on ... life's too short !! I mean its not ramadan or anything
you know, I read things like that and I'm so glad I don't live in the USA...
Interesting. In this case (assuming all things being equal which they seldom are) I'd be willing to make the stab that the lab was right and the results varied a bit either side.
The problem is that I've seen the other result sets and it doesn't really fit that pattern to my memory ... perplexing isn't it.
yep, and being somewhere around 3 isn't bad ...
the question I'd ask is: "has it driven your INR up or does it somehow effect your meters reading of the INR?"
being a consistent drinker (a glass most nights of the week) but not a heavy drinker (in that its one glass most nights) I suppose evens out my testing observations.
I would do the same ... I've found that when I do that I get a massive spike down even from a minor adjustment. My 'interpretation' of that effect is that it was naturally oscillating (cycling) and I just happened to catch it at a peak ... then adjusting a dose caused the down cycle to drop further ...
<shrug />
what? come on ... life's too short !! I mean its not ramadan or anything
you know, I read things like that and I'm so glad I don't live in the USA...
