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:BackgroundAlthough alcohol breath testing devices that pair with smartphones are promoted for the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving, their accuracy has not been established.MethodsIn a within-subjects laboratory study, we administered weight-based doses of ethanol to two groups of 10 healthy, moderate drinkers aiming to achieve a target peak blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10%. We obtained a peak phlebotomy BAC and measured breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) with a police-grade device (Intoxilyzer 240) and two randomly ordered series of 3 consumer smartphone-paired devices (6 total devices) with measurements every 20 min until the BrAC reached <0.02% on the police device. Ten participants tested the first 3 devices, and the other 10 participants tested the other 3 devices. We measured mean paired differences in BrAC with 95% confidence intervals between the police-grade device and consumer devices.ResultsThe enrolled sample (N = 20) included 11 females; 15 white, 3 Asian, and 2 Black participants; with a mean age of 27 and mean BMI of 24.6. Peak BACs ranged from 0.06-0.14%. All 7 devices underestimated BAC by >0.01%, though the BACtrack Mobile Pro and police-grade device were consistently more accurate than the Drinkmate and Evoc. Compared with the police-grade device measurements, the BACtrack Mobile Pro readings were consistently higher, the BACtrack Vio and Alcohoot measurements similar, and the Floome, Drinkmake, and Evoc consistently lower. The BACtrack Mobile Pro and Alcohoot were most sensitive in detecting BAC driving limit thresholds, while the Drinkmate and Evoc devices failed to detect BAC limit thresholds more than 50% of the time relative to the police-grade device.ConclusionsThe accuracy of smartphone-paired devices varied widely in this laboratory study of healthy participants. Although some devices are suitable for clinical and research purposes, others underestimated BAC, creating the potential to mislead intoxicated users into thinking that they are fit to drive.

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.

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

Tweets