Differences In Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (APTT) & Prothrombin Time (PT) Methods Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) and Electromechanic Semi Automatic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37287/ijghr.v8i1.369Keywords:
aPTT, electromechanic semi automatic, POCT, PTAbstract
Currently, there are several methods of coagulation testing, one of which is the Point-of-care testing (POCT) method which has emerged as a tool that plays an important role in modern healthcare, enabling fast, convenient diagnosis as well as more economical costs and can be done directly at the patient's treatment site. Some laboratories have also used the semi-automatic elecromechanic coagulation analyser as a coagulation testing tool. Objective to see the difference of aPTT and PT values in POCT method and semi automatic electromechanic method, so that it is useful in the selection of coagulometer. This study is an observational study with a cross sectional design conducted at H. Adam Malik Hospital Medan. Using 100 samples obtained through non-probability sampling with the consecutive sampling technique, each sample was examined for aPTT, PT, and INR using the POCT method and the electromechanical semi-automatic method. The results of each examination were analysed using the Mann Whitney statistical test. The results of the comparative test between INR of the POCT method and electromechanic semi-automatic found a significant difference between the two examination methods (p = <0.001). While in the aPTT an PT parameter, the POCT method with semi-automatic electromechanic did not find a significant difference between the two examination methods (p = 0.434 and p= 0.371). The average value of the difference between the two tools was 4.12 seconds in aPTT parameters and 0.50 in INR. There is no significant difference in the results of the aPTT and PT parameter between the two methods but there is a difference in the results of the INR parameter.
References
Ardina, R., Sartika, F., & Nainggolan, L. P. (2020). APTT (Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time) dan (Prothrombin Time) pada Penderita Diabetes Melitus Tipe 2 di RSUD dr. Doris Sylvanus Palangkaraya. Borneo Journal of Medical Laboratory Technology, 2(2), 125–129. https://doi.org/10.33084/bjmlt.v2i2.1384
Balendran, C. A., Henderson, N., Olsson, M., Lövgren, A., & Hansson, K. M. (2017). Preclinical evaluation of point-of-care prothrombin time as a biomarker test to guide prothrombin replacement therapy in coagulopathic bleeding. Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 1(2), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/rth2.12027
Ebner, M., Peter, A., Spencer, C., Härtig, F., Birschmann, I., Kuhn, J., … et al. (2015). Point-of-care testing of coagulation in patients treated with non-Vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. Stroke, 46(10), 2741–2747. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.009067
Ferreira, C. E. S., Guerra, J. C. C., Slhessarenko, N., Scartezini, M., França, C. N., Colombini, M. P., et al. (2018). Point-of-Care testing: General aspects. Clinical Laboratory, 64, 1–9.
Goyal, V. K., Kakade, S., Pandey, S. K., Gothi, A. K., & Nirogi, R. (2015). Determining the effect of storage conditions on prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time and fibrinogen concentration in rat plasma samples. Laboratory Animals, 49(4), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677215597137
Harris, L., Lakshmanan, R. S., Efremov, V., & Killard, A. J. (2017). Point of care blood coagulation monitoring technologies. In Medical Biosensors for Point of Care (POC) Applications (pp. 203–207). https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0399
Hernaningsih, Y., & Butarbutar, T. V. (2017). The effects of plasma prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time based on different instruments and methods. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Retrieved April 30, 2025, from www.jcdr.net
Jean, B. N., Clarisse, D., & Zephanie, N. (2020). Effect of haemolysis, icterus and lipemia on prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and fibrinogen measured using Sysmex CA-50 Hemostasis Analyzer at La Croix du Sud Hospital. Journal of Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology Research, 10(1), 1–5.
LaPelusa, A., & Dave, H. D. (2023, May 1). Physiology, hemostasis. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK545263/
Lardinois, B., Hardy, M., Michaux, I., Horlait, G., Rotens, T., Jacqmin, H., … et al. (2022). Monitoring of unfractionated heparin therapy in the intensive care unit using a point-of-care aPTT: A comparative, longitudinal observational study with laboratory-based aPTT and anti-Xa activity measurement. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(5), 1338. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11051338
Levy, J. H., Szlam, F., Wolberg, A. S., & Winkler, A. (2014). Clinical use of the activated partial thromboplastin time and prothrombin time for screening: A review of the literature and current guidelines for testing. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine, 34(3), 453–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2014.06.005
Meesters, M. I., Kuiper, G., Vonk, A. B. A., Loer, A., & Boer, C. (2016). Validation of a point-of-care prothrombin time test after cardiopulmonary bypass in cardiac surgery. Anaesthesia, 71, 1163–1168.
Nam, M., Hur, M., Kim, H., Yoon, S., Lee, S., Shin, S., Moon, H.-W., & Yun, Y.-M. (2020). Performance evaluation of CoaguChek Pro II in comparison with CoaguChek XS Plus and STA-R Max using a STANeoplastine CI Plus. International Journal of Laboratory Hematology. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.13466
Niederdöckl, J., Dempfle, C. E., Schönherr, H. R., Bartsch, A., Miles, G., Laggner, A., & Pathil, A. (2016). Point-of-care PT and aPTT in patients with suspected deficiencies of coagulation factors. International Journal of Laboratory Hematology, 38(4), 426–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.12519
O’Donnell, J. S., O’Sullivan, J. M., & Preston, R. J. S. (2019). Advances in understanding the molecular mechanisms that maintain normal haemostasis. British Journal of Haematology, 186, 24–36.
Pulcer, M., Gumulec, J., Recova, L., Kolarova, S., Svagera, Z., & Stejskal, D. (2020). The comparison of critical care instrument CoaguChek® Pro II with coagulation analyzers Sysmex CS-5100 and Cobas t 511. Ostrava, Czech Republic: University of Ostrava, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biomedical Sciences; University Hospital Ostrava, Institute of Laboratory Diagnostics, Department of Clinical Hematology.
Song, H., & Yao, J. (Eds.). (2021). In vitro diagnostic industry in China. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2316-5
Srivastava, A., & Kelleher, A. (2013). Point-of-care coagulation testing. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain, 13(1), 12–16.
Tzoran, I., Hoffman, R., & Monreal, M. (2018). Hemostasis and thrombosis in the oldest old. Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis, 44(7), 624–631.
Wendy, S. B., Albright, K. J., Berman, M., Spratt, H., Mann, P. A., Unabia, J., & Petersen, J. R. (2017). POCT PT INR — Is it adequate for patient care? A comparison of the Roche Coaguchek XS vs. Stago Star vs. Siemens BCS in patients routinely seen in an anticoagulation clinic. Clinica Chimica Acta. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2017.07.027
Zou, Z., Ma, Y., Tian, Q., Wang, H., Ding, C., & Zhang, J. (2023). Blood coagulation analyzer and reagents. In H. Song & L. Dai (Eds.), In vitro diagnostic industry in China. Springer. Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3110-1_17
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Indonesian Journal of Global Health Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
