J
JimChicago
One question I have is when getting INR testing via venous draws I had the experience once of having a remark on the blood test results to the effect that:
"Coagulation Results May Be Affected By Improper Blood/Anti-Coagulant volume."
Also on the internet I found this article about how the volume of blood in the different tubes can result in a wrong INR result -
From:
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/134/6/465
>>>>
A HIGH INR
The re-peated
INR, measured by a different phlebotomist, is 2.1.
Other patients also had spuriously elevated INRs on the
previous day. Because of the long half-life of the clotting
factors, the INR would have taken several days to passively
drift down from 4.9 to 2.1 (100).
Thus, this rapid reduction, along with the other ele-vated
INRs, leads us to suspect a laboratory or processing
error. We speak with the experienced phlebotomist who
drew the first INR. She had noted that the new batch of
blue-top tubes seemed to be filling more than usual; in an
attempt not to ?overfill? these tubes, she had removed them
once they had filled to the usual level (2.7 mL).
On inspection, we see that the laboratory has changed
from the Becton-Dickinson partial-fill tubes, which have
sufficient vacuum to draw 2.7 mL of blood, to a full-draw
tube designed to draw 4.5 mL of blood. This change was
triggered by a recent study showing that the partial-draw
tubes can result in inaccurate coagulation monitoring
(101). The full-draw tubes have the same external dimen-sions
as the partial-draw tubes, but they have a greater
volume of the anticoagulant sodium citrate and a greater
negative pressure. Although they are accurate when properly
filled, in this case the full-draw tubes resulted in spuriously
elevated INR values because they were filled with less than
4.5 mL of blood.
>>>>>
I was wondering if anyone else heard of this? - if getting a venous draw should I try to alert the phlebotomist that the tube fill volume is important for the INR to be correct?
"Coagulation Results May Be Affected By Improper Blood/Anti-Coagulant volume."
Also on the internet I found this article about how the volume of blood in the different tubes can result in a wrong INR result -
From:
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/134/6/465
>>>>
A HIGH INR
The re-peated
INR, measured by a different phlebotomist, is 2.1.
Other patients also had spuriously elevated INRs on the
previous day. Because of the long half-life of the clotting
factors, the INR would have taken several days to passively
drift down from 4.9 to 2.1 (100).
Thus, this rapid reduction, along with the other ele-vated
INRs, leads us to suspect a laboratory or processing
error. We speak with the experienced phlebotomist who
drew the first INR. She had noted that the new batch of
blue-top tubes seemed to be filling more than usual; in an
attempt not to ?overfill? these tubes, she had removed them
once they had filled to the usual level (2.7 mL).
On inspection, we see that the laboratory has changed
from the Becton-Dickinson partial-fill tubes, which have
sufficient vacuum to draw 2.7 mL of blood, to a full-draw
tube designed to draw 4.5 mL of blood. This change was
triggered by a recent study showing that the partial-draw
tubes can result in inaccurate coagulation monitoring
(101). The full-draw tubes have the same external dimen-sions
as the partial-draw tubes, but they have a greater
volume of the anticoagulant sodium citrate and a greater
negative pressure. Although they are accurate when properly
filled, in this case the full-draw tubes resulted in spuriously
elevated INR values because they were filled with less than
4.5 mL of blood.
>>>>>
I was wondering if anyone else heard of this? - if getting a venous draw should I try to alert the phlebotomist that the tube fill volume is important for the INR to be correct?