{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02336028751123091, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005390835579514825, 'mean_word_length': 5.8765432098765435, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Point-of-care (POC) versus central laboratory instrumentation for monitoring oral anticoagulation

Point-of-care (POC) instruments employing fingerstick whole blood to monitor patients treated with warfarin are a popular alternative to complex, central laboratory coagulation analyzers utilizing citrated plasma derived from venipuncture. We investigated the accuracy of two widely utilized POC instruments for oral anticoagulation monitoring compared with a central laboratory instrument. Instrument-to-instrument variation differed for the two POC instruments, which correlated with the central laboratory instrument, but exhibited positive bias of 0.24-0.35 INR units. Positive bias increased as the INR values increased. We conclude that clinicians should exercise caution when interpreting results generated by POC monitors, particularly at high INR values. A high POC measurement of INR does not necessarily warrant decreasing the warfarin dose. Instead, a predefined cut-off range for high INR values generated by POC instruments should mandate confirmatory testing with central laboratory instrumentation.