In another thread, it was suggested that I had what some photo buffs call Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS).
I probably do.
Last year, I went out searching for the most accurate meter, in response to a TIA that I had that was due, at least to some major extent, to my trust of my old meter's accuracy (and to my low supply of strips). A 2.6 on my old meter was a 1.7 and 1.8 after I went to the hospital with a TIA. I don't EVER want my ACTUAL INR to be below 2.0 -- and if so, for only a day or two at most.
I evaluated InRatio, InRatio 2, CoaguChek XS, ProTime and ProTime 3 and Coag-Sense against a hospital lab that had tests that I actually have a fair amount of confidence in. The meter testing was done weekly (ProTime meters weren't tested weekly - in part because the testing was more of a pain than it was with the other meters). I had monthly blood draws, and correlated the InRatio 2, CoaguChek XS and Coag-Sense to the lab results. (In honesty, I didn't have the XS during all this comparison testing).
I wanted to also try the HemoChron Signature, which is supposedly used in Operating Rooms during surgery, so should be the most accurate, but wasn't quite able to get one that was not already locked out and required a user ID and password (meaning that it was unusable for me).
My conclusions were that the InRatio and InRatio 2 were both reporting values that were too much above the lab values that I didn't want to use them. (My concern is that a 2.0 on an InRatio would be more like a 1.6 or 1.7, and that confidence in the meter for stroke avoidance would be misplaced). The XS was easy to use, and sometimes reported only slightly higher than the Coag-Sense and the lab.
My ultimate choice was the Coag-Sense, in large part because it reported results that were either very close to the lab results or slightly lower (by .1 or .2). In my mind, if I had a 2.1 or 2.2 reported by the Coag-Sense, this may mean that the actual INR was 2.3 or higher -- keeping me out of risk of TIA. The Coag-Sense became my meter of choice. I pretty much stopped using the XS, and I haven't tested with the InRatio or InRatio 2 in many months.
But now, about my Gadget Acquisition Syndrome -- I recently got the opportunity to get a CoaguChek XS Plus. This is the model that is probably in use in some clinics and doctor offices (although the basic XS probably works just fine for most clinics or doctors). This model has an infrared interface, so you can connect it to a computer that had the right software. It has administrative features. It stores 1000 tests. In short, it has many more features that a lab or clinic may desire. I had an inkling that, although this model uses the same testing technology as the 'patient' model, it may take accuracy just a small step further. I now have an XS Plus.
On Wednesday, my Coag-Sense reported an INR of 3.1. The next day, after I got the XS Plus, the XS Plus reported an INR of 3.5. Obviously, INRs aren't stable and could (and do) change from day to day. I'm not surprised that the two meters didn't agree, or that the XS Plus reported a higher value -- but I didn't do a parallel test with the Coag-Sense, so I don't know if the results would have matched or not.
On Monday, I'll make my quarterly trip to the Anticoagulation Clinic (I convinced them that, with adequate self-monitoring, I really didn't NEED to waste my time and money going for monthly visits). On that day, they'll probably use their Hemochron to test my INR. Within an hour of that test, I'll test with Coag-Sense and CoaguChek XS Plus and may have a better idea about how all three (assuming that the Hemochron is lab accurate) correlate. If my fingertips are up to it, I may even take my XS out of mothballs and test on it, too. (Ideally, all four meters will match exactly -- this would be as surprising as a thunderstorm here in L.A. on that same morning)
I'll report these values some time next week.
I probably do.
Last year, I went out searching for the most accurate meter, in response to a TIA that I had that was due, at least to some major extent, to my trust of my old meter's accuracy (and to my low supply of strips). A 2.6 on my old meter was a 1.7 and 1.8 after I went to the hospital with a TIA. I don't EVER want my ACTUAL INR to be below 2.0 -- and if so, for only a day or two at most.
I evaluated InRatio, InRatio 2, CoaguChek XS, ProTime and ProTime 3 and Coag-Sense against a hospital lab that had tests that I actually have a fair amount of confidence in. The meter testing was done weekly (ProTime meters weren't tested weekly - in part because the testing was more of a pain than it was with the other meters). I had monthly blood draws, and correlated the InRatio 2, CoaguChek XS and Coag-Sense to the lab results. (In honesty, I didn't have the XS during all this comparison testing).
I wanted to also try the HemoChron Signature, which is supposedly used in Operating Rooms during surgery, so should be the most accurate, but wasn't quite able to get one that was not already locked out and required a user ID and password (meaning that it was unusable for me).
My conclusions were that the InRatio and InRatio 2 were both reporting values that were too much above the lab values that I didn't want to use them. (My concern is that a 2.0 on an InRatio would be more like a 1.6 or 1.7, and that confidence in the meter for stroke avoidance would be misplaced). The XS was easy to use, and sometimes reported only slightly higher than the Coag-Sense and the lab.
My ultimate choice was the Coag-Sense, in large part because it reported results that were either very close to the lab results or slightly lower (by .1 or .2). In my mind, if I had a 2.1 or 2.2 reported by the Coag-Sense, this may mean that the actual INR was 2.3 or higher -- keeping me out of risk of TIA. The Coag-Sense became my meter of choice. I pretty much stopped using the XS, and I haven't tested with the InRatio or InRatio 2 in many months.
But now, about my Gadget Acquisition Syndrome -- I recently got the opportunity to get a CoaguChek XS Plus. This is the model that is probably in use in some clinics and doctor offices (although the basic XS probably works just fine for most clinics or doctors). This model has an infrared interface, so you can connect it to a computer that had the right software. It has administrative features. It stores 1000 tests. In short, it has many more features that a lab or clinic may desire. I had an inkling that, although this model uses the same testing technology as the 'patient' model, it may take accuracy just a small step further. I now have an XS Plus.
On Wednesday, my Coag-Sense reported an INR of 3.1. The next day, after I got the XS Plus, the XS Plus reported an INR of 3.5. Obviously, INRs aren't stable and could (and do) change from day to day. I'm not surprised that the two meters didn't agree, or that the XS Plus reported a higher value -- but I didn't do a parallel test with the Coag-Sense, so I don't know if the results would have matched or not.
On Monday, I'll make my quarterly trip to the Anticoagulation Clinic (I convinced them that, with adequate self-monitoring, I really didn't NEED to waste my time and money going for monthly visits). On that day, they'll probably use their Hemochron to test my INR. Within an hour of that test, I'll test with Coag-Sense and CoaguChek XS Plus and may have a better idea about how all three (assuming that the Hemochron is lab accurate) correlate. If my fingertips are up to it, I may even take my XS out of mothballs and test on it, too. (Ideally, all four meters will match exactly -- this would be as surprising as a thunderstorm here in L.A. on that same morning)
I'll report these values some time next week.
