Cargando…

Two different hematocrit detection methods: Different methods, different results?

BACKGROUND: Less is known about the influence of hematocrit detection methodology on transfusion triggers. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare two different hematocrit-assessing methods. In a total of 50 critically ill patients hematocrit was analyzed using (1) blood gas analyzer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bosshart, Marco, Stover, John F, Stocker, Reto, Asmis, Lars M, Feige, Jörg, Neff, Thomas A, Schuepbach, Reto A, Cottini, Silvia R, Béchir, Markus
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2845149/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20214819
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-3-65
_version_ 1782179388042772480
author Bosshart, Marco
Stover, John F
Stocker, Reto
Asmis, Lars M
Feige, Jörg
Neff, Thomas A
Schuepbach, Reto A
Cottini, Silvia R
Béchir, Markus
author_facet Bosshart, Marco
Stover, John F
Stocker, Reto
Asmis, Lars M
Feige, Jörg
Neff, Thomas A
Schuepbach, Reto A
Cottini, Silvia R
Béchir, Markus
author_sort Bosshart, Marco
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Less is known about the influence of hematocrit detection methodology on transfusion triggers. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare two different hematocrit-assessing methods. In a total of 50 critically ill patients hematocrit was analyzed using (1) blood gas analyzer (ABLflex 800) and (2) the central laboratory method (ADVIA(® )2120) and compared. FINDINGS: Bland-Altman analysis for repeated measurements showed a good correlation with a bias of +1.39% and 2 SD of ± 3.12%. The 24%-hematocrit-group showed a correlation of r(2 )= 0.87. With a kappa of 0.56, 22.7% of the cases would have been transfused differently. In the-28%-hematocrit group with a similar correlation (r(2 )= 0.8) and a kappa of 0.58, 21% of the cases would have been transfused differently. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a good agreement between the two methods used to determine hematocrit in clinical routine, the calculated difference of 1.4% might substantially influence transfusion triggers depending on the employed method.
format Text
id pubmed-2845149
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28451492010-03-26 Two different hematocrit detection methods: Different methods, different results? Bosshart, Marco Stover, John F Stocker, Reto Asmis, Lars M Feige, Jörg Neff, Thomas A Schuepbach, Reto A Cottini, Silvia R Béchir, Markus BMC Res Notes Short Report BACKGROUND: Less is known about the influence of hematocrit detection methodology on transfusion triggers. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare two different hematocrit-assessing methods. In a total of 50 critically ill patients hematocrit was analyzed using (1) blood gas analyzer (ABLflex 800) and (2) the central laboratory method (ADVIA(® )2120) and compared. FINDINGS: Bland-Altman analysis for repeated measurements showed a good correlation with a bias of +1.39% and 2 SD of ± 3.12%. The 24%-hematocrit-group showed a correlation of r(2 )= 0.87. With a kappa of 0.56, 22.7% of the cases would have been transfused differently. In the-28%-hematocrit group with a similar correlation (r(2 )= 0.8) and a kappa of 0.58, 21% of the cases would have been transfused differently. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a good agreement between the two methods used to determine hematocrit in clinical routine, the calculated difference of 1.4% might substantially influence transfusion triggers depending on the employed method. BioMed Central 2010-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC2845149/ /pubmed/20214819 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-3-65 Text en Copyright ©2010 Béchir et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Short Report
Bosshart, Marco
Stover, John F
Stocker, Reto
Asmis, Lars M
Feige, Jörg
Neff, Thomas A
Schuepbach, Reto A
Cottini, Silvia R
Béchir, Markus
Two different hematocrit detection methods: Different methods, different results?
title Two different hematocrit detection methods: Different methods, different results?
title_full Two different hematocrit detection methods: Different methods, different results?
title_fullStr Two different hematocrit detection methods: Different methods, different results?
title_full_unstemmed Two different hematocrit detection methods: Different methods, different results?
title_short Two different hematocrit detection methods: Different methods, different results?
title_sort two different hematocrit detection methods: different methods, different results?
topic Short Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2845149/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20214819
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-3-65
work_keys_str_mv AT bosshartmarco twodifferenthematocritdetectionmethodsdifferentmethodsdifferentresults
AT stoverjohnf twodifferenthematocritdetectionmethodsdifferentmethodsdifferentresults
AT stockerreto twodifferenthematocritdetectionmethodsdifferentmethodsdifferentresults
AT asmislarsm twodifferenthematocritdetectionmethodsdifferentmethodsdifferentresults
AT feigejorg twodifferenthematocritdetectionmethodsdifferentmethodsdifferentresults
AT neffthomasa twodifferenthematocritdetectionmethodsdifferentmethodsdifferentresults
AT schuepbachretoa twodifferenthematocritdetectionmethodsdifferentmethodsdifferentresults
AT cottinisilviar twodifferenthematocritdetectionmethodsdifferentmethodsdifferentresults
AT bechirmarkus twodifferenthematocritdetectionmethodsdifferentmethodsdifferentresults