Dataset Information

Lactate point-of-care testing for acidosis: Cross-comparison of two devices with routine laboratory results.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Lactate is a major parameter in medical decision making. During labor, it is an indicator for fetal acidosis and immediate intervention. In the Emergency Department (ED), rapid analysis of lactate/blood gas is crucial for optimal patient care. Our objectives were to cross-compare-for the first time-two point-of-care testing (POCT) lactate devices with routine laboratory results using novel tight precision targets and evaluate different lactate cut-off concentrations to predict metabolic acidosis.

Design and methods

Blood samples from the delivery room (n=66) and from the ED (n=85) were analyzed on two POCT devices, the StatStrip-Lactate (Nova Biomedical) and the iSTAT-1 (CG4+ cassettes, Abbott), and compared to the routine laboratory analyzer (ABL-735, Radiometer). Lactate concentrations were cross-compared between these analyzers.

Results

The StatStrip correlated well with the ABL-735 (R=0.9737) and with the iSTAT-1 (R=0.9774) for lactate in umbilical cord blood. Lactate concentrations in ED samples measured on the iSTAT-1 and ABL-735 showed a correlation coefficient of R=0.9953. Analytical imprecision was excellent for lactate and pH, while for pO₂ and pCO₂ the coefficient of variation was relatively high using the iSTAT-1.

Conclusion

Both POCT devices showed adequate analytical performance to measure lactate. The StatStrip can indicate metabolic acidosis in 1 ?l blood and will be implemented at the delivery room.

SUBMITTER: van Horssen R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5574518 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lactate point-of-care testing for acidosis: Cross-comparison of two devices with routine laboratory results.

van Horssen Remco R Schuurman Teska N TN de Groot Monique J M MJM Jakobs Bernadette S BS

Practical laboratory medicine 20151224

<h4>Objectives</h4>Lactate is a major parameter in medical decision making. During labor, it is an indicator for fetal acidosis and immediate intervention. In the Emergency Department (ED), rapid analysis of lactate/blood gas is crucial for optimal patient care. Our objectives were to cross-compare-for the first time-two point-of-care testing (POCT) lactate devices with routine laboratory results using novel tight precision targets and evaluate different lactate cut-off concentrations to predict ...[more]

PMID: 28856192

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is rapidly becoming ubiquitous across healthcare specialties. This is due to several factors including its portability, immediacy of results to guide clinical decision-making, and lack of radiation exposure to patients. The recent growth of handheld ultrasound devices has improved access to ultrasound for many clinicians. Few studies have directly compared different handheld ultrasound devices among themselves or to cart-based ultrasound machines. We conducted a prospective observational study comparing four common handheld ultrasound devices for ease of use, image quality, and overall satisfaction. Twenty-four POCUS experts utilized four handheld devices (Butterfly iQ+™ by Butterfly Network Inc., Kosmos™ by EchoNous, Vscan Air™ by General Electric, and Lumify™ by Philips Healthcare) to obtain three ultrasound views on the same standardized patients using high- and low-frequency probes.ResultsData were collected from 24 POCUS experts using all 4 handheld devices. No single ultrasound device was superior in all categories. For overall ease of use, the Vscan Air™ was rated highest, followed by the Lumify™. For overall image quality, Lumify™ was rated highest, followed by Kosmos™. The Lumify™ device was rated highest for overall satisfaction, while the Vscan Air™ was rated as the most likely to be purchased personally and carried in one's coat pocket. The top 5 characteristics of handheld ultrasound devices rated as being "very important" were image quality, ease of use, portability, total costs, and availability of different probes.ConclusionsIn a comparison of four common handheld ultrasound devices in the United States, no single handheld ultrasound device was perceived to have all desired characteristics. POCUS experts rated the Lumify™ highest for image quality and Vscan Air™ highest for ease of use. Overall satisfaction was highest with the Lumify™ device, while the most likely to be purchased as a pocket device was the Vscan Air™. Image quality was felt to be the most important characteristic in evaluating handheld ultrasound devices.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity Paramedics (CPs) require access to timely blood analysis in the field to guide treatment and transport decisions. Point of care testing (POCT), as opposed to laboratory analysis, may offer a solution, but limited research exists on CP POCT. The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of two devices (Abbott i-STAT® and Alere epoc®) by CPs in the community.MethodsIn a CP programme responding to 6000 annual patient care events, a split sample validation of POCT against traditional laboratory analysis for seven analytes (sodium, potassium, chloride, creatinine, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and glucose) was conducted on a consecutive sample of patients. The difference of proportion of discrepant results between POCT and laboratory was compared using a two sample proportion test. Usability was analysed by survey of CP experience, a linear mixed effects model of Systems Usability Scale (SUS) adjusted for CP clinical and POCT experience, an expert heuristic evaluation of devices, a review of device-logged errors, and coded observations of POCT use during quality control testing.ResultsOf 1649 episodes of care screened for enrollment, 174 required a blood draw, with 108 episodes (62.1%) enrolled from 73 participants. Participants had a mean age of 58.7 years (SD16.3); 49% were female. In 4 of 646 (0.6%) comparisons, POCT reported a critical value but the laboratory did not; with no statistically significant (p = 0.323) difference between i-STAT® (0.9%;95%CI:0.0,1.9%) compared with epoc® (0.3%;95%CI:0.0,0.9%). There were no instances of the laboratory reporting a critical value when POCT did not. In 88 of 1046 (8.4%) comparisons the a priori defined acceptable difference between POCT and the laboratory was exceeded; occurring more often in epoc® (10.7%;95%CI:8.1,13.3%) compared with i-STAT® (6.1%;95%CI:4.1,8.2%)(p = 0.007). Eighteen of 19 CP surveys were returned, with 11/18 (61.1%) preferring i-STAT® over epoc®. The i-STAT® had a higher mean SUS score (higher usability) compared with epoc® (84.0/100 vs. 59.6/100; p = 0.011). There were no statistically significant differences in device logged errors between i-STAT® and epoc® (p = 0.063).ConclusionsCP programmes can expect clinically valid results from POCT. Device usability assessments should be considered with any local implementation as the two POCT systems have different strengths.

Project description:ObjectivesRisk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 (HA-COVID-19) infection is increased by cohorting infected and non-infected patients together in assessment areas, whist awaiting laboratory PCR results. Molecular point-of-care tests (mPOCT) reduce time to results and improve patient flow but the impact on HA-COVID-19 is unknown.MethodsIn this pre and post implementation study patients were evaluated across two time periods: March 1st to August 13th 2020, prior to the introduction of mPOCT in medical admissions areas, and 14th August 2020 to 1st April 2021, after mPOCT introduction. The primary outcome was proportion of HA-COVID-19 infection among all COVID-19 positive patients. Secondary outcome measures included time to SARS-CoV-2 results, length of time spent in the medical assessment area and comparison of local, regional and national proportions of HA-COVID-19.Results1988 patients were admitted through the acute medicine admission cohorting area and tested for SARS-CoV-2 prior to introducing mPOCT and 4640 afterwards. Median (IQR) time to SARS-CoV-2 result was 6.5 (2.1-17.9) hours prior to introducing mPOCT and 1.0 (0.8-1.3) hours afterwards (p < 0.0001). Median (IQR) duration in the assessment cohort area was 12.0 (4.8-20.6) hours prior to introduction of POCT and 3.2 (2.0-5.6) hours afterwards (p < 0.0001). The proportion of hospital-acquired COVID-19 cases was 108 (16.5%) of 654 prior to introducing mPOCT compared with 168 (9.4%) of 1782 afterwards, (HR 0.55, 95%CI 0.43-0.70; p < 0.0001). In the period following the introduction of mPOCT up to 1st April 2021 the median proportion of HA-COVID-19 was 13.6% (95%CI 8.2-18.9%) locally, compared with 43.8% (95%CI 37.8-49.9%) for all acute NHS trusts regionally and 30.9% (95%CI 28.4-33.5%) for all NHS trusts nationally.ConclusionsRoutine mPOCT for SARS-CoV-2 was associated with reduced time to results, time spent in admission cohort areas, and hospital-acquired COVID-19, compared to laboratory PCR.

Dataset Information

Lactate point-of-care testing for acidosis: Cross-comparison of two devices with routine laboratory results.

Objectives

Design and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Lactate point-of-care testing for acidosis: Cross-comparison of two devices with routine laboratory results.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure