VR.org SupporterSupporting Member
- Mar 17, 2015
- SOUTH FLORIDA
YES, and agreed 100%, and I would add to that, I think that it is not being brought here enough and for all here to comment about perhaps,some points on error margins.
1) error increases as INR does, which means a graph like this is possible
View attachment 889094
if you're unfamiliar with reading graphs let me add in one or two with guides
View attachment 889095
so in general (in that study) outliers tend to be off higher (red line was Lab = 3.6 while XS gave 4.6
Now, if you were (say) INR Target = 2.5 then either of those high figures would be reason to turn your INR around. However the XS would steer you back to the middle (the target) a little earlier.
Around INR = 2 the differences were less, which is good because 2 and lower is increasingly not where you want to be.
Around INR = 2.5 theyr were quite close
Also important to keep in mind "Clinical Significance" ... is there really any importance between being 2.3 or 2.7? Remember also that all of this is fuzzy. We have a range of INR's where its pretty safe and the aim isn't to get a number its to not have an event.
By being as close to our target as we can we minimise the risks of harm
and the aim isn't to get a number its to not have an event. ["and the aim isn't to get a number its to not have an event.
By being as close to our target as we can we minimize the risks of harm"]