Reporting of activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT): Could we achieve better comparability of the results?

INTRODUCTION: Activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) is determined and reported as clotting time in seconds aPTT(s), but it is presumed that reporting results as patient-to-normal clotting time ratio, aPTT(r), could minimize within-laboratory variability. The aim of study was to investigate differences in reporting aPTT results that can affect comparability of the results among Croatian laboratories and suggest further steps for its harmonization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The questionnaire on aPTT reporting practice was distributed to 83 laboratories through Survey Monkey application in March 2019 as the part of the first regular round of Croatian Centre for Quality Assessment in Laboratory Medicine proficiency testing. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 0.49. Majority of laboratories report aPTT results as both, seconds and ratio. Participants reported use of 23 different aPTT(s) reference intervals along with 17 different combinations of reagent/coagulometer and 25 aPTT(s) denominators of different origin for aPTT(r) calculation. Despite the same aPTT(s) results, the use of different denominators caused a dispersion of aPTT(r) results that can lead to exceeding external quality assessment performance criteria of 7%, particularly when results were compared for the same reagent group only. By applying aPTT(s) reference interval mean as denominator for calculation of aPTT(r) reference interval better concordance to harmonized one was obtained (17 vs. 27; χ(2) = 3.972; P = 0.046). CONCLUSION: In order to improve comparability of the results, laboratories are advised to use mean of aPTT(s) reference interval as denominator for aPTT(r) calculation. Type of coagulometer need to be considered when evaluating aPTT proficiency test results and its currently acceptable limit of performance evaluated accordingly.