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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |