I haven't been accused of getting just one meter and sticking with it. I remain interested in one that gives results that are closest to a lab results (assuming, of course, that the lab is competent and that the blood isn't mishandled before it gets to the lab). My goal is still, eventually, to see a day when anyone who is taking an anticoagulant can get regular testing, regardless of ability to pay. From a pure public health standpoint, it's a critical issue. In my mind, if testing becomes universally affordable (and even at $5 a test, this is not the case for far too many people), there will still be too many people with negative events that are completely avoidable -- strokes and hemorrhaging being perhaps the most probable.
My personal goal is also to determine which meter (right now, just from personal experience) is the most accurate (although such a term, in relation to INR may be an impossible ideal).
In any case - recent experience shows that a) I discovered and reported a bad lot of 3-channel ProTime cuvettes to the manufacturer and - for whatevver reason - they issued a recall and replaced them with the more accurate and reliable 5-channel cuvettes. b)InRatio USUALLY (though not always) gave me values of .3-.6 above a hospital lab. c) The 5-channel ProTime cuvettes - though requiring more blood and being less easy to use than InRatio also seems to correlate better with the hospital lab than the InRatio did.
I haven't been fortunate enough to get a CoaguChek XS, so I can't personally vouch for its correlation with a lab.
--
All this being said - I've also been watching a new (?) meter that few of us seem to have heard about -- the Coag-Sense. This works a bit differently from the other meters, because there's a little wheel in the strip. When the blood mixes with the reagent in the strip, the meter starts to spin the wheel -- the clot makes the wheel stop spinning. A light shines through the wheel, when it stops, a sensor detects this, and a prothrombin time is determined. When divided by a factor that is coded into the strip, the meter provides an INR and a Prothrombin time. In theory, this sounds pretty interesting - and potentially even more accurate than other tests that don't measure the formation of physical clots in the same way.
In spite of the theoretical strength of this meter, it doesn't seem to have drawn much attention.
--
I was able to buy one today, brand new. Once I get the strips for it, I'll add it to my testing regimen. If possible, I'll get the meter and some strips before my next lab blood draw, so that I can make a comparison from day one. If not, I'll make comparisons to my InRatio, and every few weeks, between the Coag-Sense, Inratio and Protime meters.
I will report on my results.
I hope to see if the apparently low sales are more a result of inadequate marketing than they are with issues relative to the meter. (The actual testing process adds a layer of complexity to the test that doesn't exist with the InRatio or the CoaguChek XS -- although you apparently need a small drop of blood, this has to be sucked into a micropipette and deposited onto a small spot on the strip. It may not be quite as easy as just dropping a drop of blood onto an InRatio strip or touching the side of a Coaguchek XS strip).
If any of you have already had experience with the CoaguSense, I'd certainly like to read about it.
My personal goal is also to determine which meter (right now, just from personal experience) is the most accurate (although such a term, in relation to INR may be an impossible ideal).
In any case - recent experience shows that a) I discovered and reported a bad lot of 3-channel ProTime cuvettes to the manufacturer and - for whatevver reason - they issued a recall and replaced them with the more accurate and reliable 5-channel cuvettes. b)InRatio USUALLY (though not always) gave me values of .3-.6 above a hospital lab. c) The 5-channel ProTime cuvettes - though requiring more blood and being less easy to use than InRatio also seems to correlate better with the hospital lab than the InRatio did.
I haven't been fortunate enough to get a CoaguChek XS, so I can't personally vouch for its correlation with a lab.
--
All this being said - I've also been watching a new (?) meter that few of us seem to have heard about -- the Coag-Sense. This works a bit differently from the other meters, because there's a little wheel in the strip. When the blood mixes with the reagent in the strip, the meter starts to spin the wheel -- the clot makes the wheel stop spinning. A light shines through the wheel, when it stops, a sensor detects this, and a prothrombin time is determined. When divided by a factor that is coded into the strip, the meter provides an INR and a Prothrombin time. In theory, this sounds pretty interesting - and potentially even more accurate than other tests that don't measure the formation of physical clots in the same way.
In spite of the theoretical strength of this meter, it doesn't seem to have drawn much attention.
--
I was able to buy one today, brand new. Once I get the strips for it, I'll add it to my testing regimen. If possible, I'll get the meter and some strips before my next lab blood draw, so that I can make a comparison from day one. If not, I'll make comparisons to my InRatio, and every few weeks, between the Coag-Sense, Inratio and Protime meters.
I will report on my results.
I hope to see if the apparently low sales are more a result of inadequate marketing than they are with issues relative to the meter. (The actual testing process adds a layer of complexity to the test that doesn't exist with the InRatio or the CoaguChek XS -- although you apparently need a small drop of blood, this has to be sucked into a micropipette and deposited onto a small spot on the strip. It may not be quite as easy as just dropping a drop of blood onto an InRatio strip or touching the side of a Coaguchek XS strip).
If any of you have already had experience with the CoaguSense, I'd certainly like to read about it.
Last edited: