Would you still use an INRATIO II?

[Andrew01]

I have an ONX valve in the Aorta position and have home tested with an INRATIO II since my surgery six years ago.

Because of the previous recalls and notifications I am wondering if I should switch to another machine.

Also, do you think that I could get insurance to cover a new unit since the INRATIOII is currently working?

I would be interested in our thoughts on this.

 

[dick0236]

I would think that the INRatio2 strip recall has been resolved by now and that meter/strips are OK to use. I used the INRatio2 and ebay strip purchases until two years ago when the strips where recalled and became unavailable or questionable on ebay..... I became very uncomfortable using the strips. I've used the CoaguchekXS since then. I now subscribe to a program thru Coaguchek Patient Services that is covered 80/20 by my insurer.....my cost is about $5/test and I sleep better knowing where my strips are coming from.

 

[Jamey T]

I actually logged in to report that I have recently gotten some more strips for my Inratio II. My first comparison test between my Inratio II and my Coagucheck XS went as I assumed they would . The Coagucheck XS tested 3.0 and my Inratio tested 2.6. The lab results from past comparisons consistently showed my Coagucheck quite a bit higher than a blood draw. I will test them both against a blood draw this coming week. I do both tests within a half an hour, and usually 15 minutes.

I prefer the Inratio II myself.

 

[Jamey T]

I did the comparison test, and my Coagucheck gave me a 3.4, my Inratio II said 2.7 and the blood draw from the lab said 2.8. The difference between the lab and the Coagucheck is in the ballpark to previous tests. I tested both my meters from the same finger, I just used one side for one meter, the other side of my finger for the other meter. I did have troubles with the bandaid being too small when I was done though!

 

[Protimenow]

It's good to hear that the InRatio strips may have resolved an accuracy issue.

I've tested my blood using InRatio and InRatio 2, Coaguchek XS and XS Plus, ProTime Classic and Protime 3, and, most recently, Coag-Sense.

I decided years ago, after relying on my InRatio to give me an accurate INR value and paying the price when it didn't, that without some validation of a blood draw by a reliable lab, I couldn't trust either InRatio model. Although I had what may have been enough strips for a year of weekly testing, I decided to stop using the InRatio meters - my life was worth more than a box of strips.

My meter of choice is the Coag-Sense (somehow, over the years, I've wound up with three of them). I've switched medical providers and compare the Coag-Sense results to the lab. Almost consistently, the prothrombin times for meter and lab are practically identical. The INR reported by the meter is usually .2 - .4 lower than the lab. The difference is probably a result of the lab's reagent value being different from the one on the Coag-Sense strip.

In either case, the results are within the 30% acceptable margin of error recommended by ISO. I had also been testing with the CoaguChek XS, but don't use it very often. The results provided by the XS are usually higher than the blood draw. For me, I feel more comfortable with a meter that understates my INR than I am with one that is slightly higher than the lab's results. If my Coag-Sense gives me a 2.4, the lab usually says 2.6 - 2.8 - meaning that my INR is safe.

The company that makes the Coag-Sense recently upgraded its firmware - I don't think Roche has ever had a similar upgrade to the XS meters.

For me, although it's less well known, I would rather trust my life to the Coag-Sense than to the other meters.