IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0169593.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Point-of-Care Versus Central Laboratory Measurements of Hemoglobin, Hematocrit, Glucose, Bicarbonate and Electrolytes: A Prospective Observational Study in Critically Ill Patients

Author

Listed:
  • Jérôme Allardet-Servent
  • Melissa Lebsir
  • Christian Dubroca
  • Martine Fabrigoule
  • Sylvie Jordana
  • Thomas Signouret
  • Matthias Castanier
  • Guillemette Thomas
  • Rettinavelou Soundaravelou
  • Anne Lepidi
  • Laurence Delapierre
  • Guillaume Penaranda
  • Philippe Halfon
  • Jean-Marie Seghboyan

Abstract

Introduction: Rapid detection of abnormal biological values using point-of-care (POC) testing allows clinicians to promptly initiate therapy; however, there are concerns regarding the reliability of POC measurements. We investigated the agreement between the latest generation blood gas analyzer and central laboratory measurements of electrolytes, bicarbonate, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and glucose. Methods: 314 paired samples were collected prospectively from 51 critically ill patients. All samples were drawn simultaneously in the morning from an arterial line. BD Vacutainer tubes were analyzed in the central laboratory using Beckman Coulter analyzers (AU 5800 and DxH 800). BD Preset 3 ml heparinized-syringes were analyzed immediately in the ICU using the POC Siemens RAPIDPoint 500 blood gas system. We used CLIA proficiency testing criteria to define acceptable analytical performance and interchangeability. Results: Biases, limits of agreement (±1.96 SD) and coefficients of correlation were respectively: 1.3 (-2.2 to 4.8 mmol/L, r = 0.936) for sodium; 0.2 (-0.2 to 0.6 mmol/L, r = 0.944) for potassium; -0.9 (-3.7 to 2 mmol/L, r = 0.967) for chloride; 0.8 (-1.9 to 3.4 mmol/L, r = 0.968) for bicarbonate; -11 (-30 to 9 mg/dL, r = 0.972) for glucose; -0.8 (-1.4 to -0.2 g/dL, r = 0.985) for hemoglobin; and -1.1 (-2.9 to 0.7%, r = 0.981) for hematocrit. All differences were below CLIA cut-off values, except for hemoglobin. Conclusions: Compared to central Laboratory analyzers, the POC Siemens RAPIDPoint 500 blood gas system satisfied the CLIA criteria of interchangeability for all tested parameters, except for hemoglobin. These results are warranted for our own procedures and devices. Bearing these restrictions, we recommend clinicians to initiate an appropriate therapy based on POC testing without awaiting a control measurement.

Suggested Citation

  • Jérôme Allardet-Servent & Melissa Lebsir & Christian Dubroca & Martine Fabrigoule & Sylvie Jordana & Thomas Signouret & Matthias Castanier & Guillemette Thomas & Rettinavelou Soundaravelou & Anne Lepi, 2017. "Point-of-Care Versus Central Laboratory Measurements of Hemoglobin, Hematocrit, Glucose, Bicarbonate and Electrolytes: A Prospective Observational Study in Critically Ill Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0169593
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169593
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169593
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169593&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0169593?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0169593. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.