Cargando…

Systematic comparison of four point-of-care methods versus the reference laboratory measurement of hemoglobin in the surgical ICU setting: a cross-sectional method comparison study

BACKGROUND: Transfusion decision during the perioperative period mostly relies on the point-of-care testing for Hb measurement. This study aimed systematically compared four point-of-care methods with the central laboratory measurement of hemoglobin (LHb) regarding the accuracy, precision, and assay...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chutipongtanate, Arpa, Yasaeng, Churairat, Virankabutra, Tanit, Chutipongtanate, Somchai
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7175548/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32321425
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01008-8
_version_ 1783524854957342720
author Chutipongtanate, Arpa
Yasaeng, Churairat
Virankabutra, Tanit
Chutipongtanate, Somchai
author_facet Chutipongtanate, Arpa
Yasaeng, Churairat
Virankabutra, Tanit
Chutipongtanate, Somchai
author_sort Chutipongtanate, Arpa
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Transfusion decision during the perioperative period mostly relies on the point-of-care testing for Hb measurement. This study aimed systematically compared four point-of-care methods with the central laboratory measurement of hemoglobin (LHb) regarding the accuracy, precision, and assay practicality to identify the preferred point-of-care method during the perioperative period. METHODS: This cross-sectional method comparison study was conducted in the surgical intensive care unit at Ramathibodi Hospital, Thailand, from September 2015 to July 2016. Four point-of-care methods, i.e., capillary hematocrit (HctCap), HemoCue Hb201+, iSTAT with CG8+ cartridge, and SpHb from Radical-7 pulse co-oximeter were carried out when LHb was ordered. Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analyses were performed to assess the accuracy and precision, while the workload, turnaround time, and the unit cost were evaluated for the method practicality. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were enrolled, corresponding to 48 blood specimens for analyses, resulting in the measured hemoglobin of 11.2 ± 1.9 g/dL by LHb. Ranking by correlation (r), mean difference (bias) and 95% limit of agreement (LOA) showed the point-of-care methods from the greater to the less performance as followed, iSTAT-LHb pair (r = 0.941; bias 0.15 (95% LOA; − 1.41, 1.12) g/dL), HemoCue-LHb pair (r = 0.922; bias − 0.18 (95% LOA; − 1.63, 1.28) g/dL), SpHb-LHb pair (r = 0.670; bias 0.13 (95% LOA; − 3.12, 3.39) g/dL) and HctCap-LHb pair (r = 0.905; bias 0.46 (95% LOA; − 1.16, 2.08) g/dL). Considering the practicality, all point-of-care methods had less workload and turnaround time than LHb, but only HemoCue and HctCap had lower unit cost. CONCLUSION: This study identified HemoCue as the suitable point-of-care method for the sole purpose of Hb measurement in the surgical ICU setting, while iSTAT should be considered when additional data is needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7175548
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71755482020-04-24 Systematic comparison of four point-of-care methods versus the reference laboratory measurement of hemoglobin in the surgical ICU setting: a cross-sectional method comparison study Chutipongtanate, Arpa Yasaeng, Churairat Virankabutra, Tanit Chutipongtanate, Somchai BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: Transfusion decision during the perioperative period mostly relies on the point-of-care testing for Hb measurement. This study aimed systematically compared four point-of-care methods with the central laboratory measurement of hemoglobin (LHb) regarding the accuracy, precision, and assay practicality to identify the preferred point-of-care method during the perioperative period. METHODS: This cross-sectional method comparison study was conducted in the surgical intensive care unit at Ramathibodi Hospital, Thailand, from September 2015 to July 2016. Four point-of-care methods, i.e., capillary hematocrit (HctCap), HemoCue Hb201+, iSTAT with CG8+ cartridge, and SpHb from Radical-7 pulse co-oximeter were carried out when LHb was ordered. Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analyses were performed to assess the accuracy and precision, while the workload, turnaround time, and the unit cost were evaluated for the method practicality. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were enrolled, corresponding to 48 blood specimens for analyses, resulting in the measured hemoglobin of 11.2 ± 1.9 g/dL by LHb. Ranking by correlation (r), mean difference (bias) and 95% limit of agreement (LOA) showed the point-of-care methods from the greater to the less performance as followed, iSTAT-LHb pair (r = 0.941; bias 0.15 (95% LOA; − 1.41, 1.12) g/dL), HemoCue-LHb pair (r = 0.922; bias − 0.18 (95% LOA; − 1.63, 1.28) g/dL), SpHb-LHb pair (r = 0.670; bias 0.13 (95% LOA; − 3.12, 3.39) g/dL) and HctCap-LHb pair (r = 0.905; bias 0.46 (95% LOA; − 1.16, 2.08) g/dL). Considering the practicality, all point-of-care methods had less workload and turnaround time than LHb, but only HemoCue and HctCap had lower unit cost. CONCLUSION: This study identified HemoCue as the suitable point-of-care method for the sole purpose of Hb measurement in the surgical ICU setting, while iSTAT should be considered when additional data is needed. BioMed Central 2020-04-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7175548/ /pubmed/32321425 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01008-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chutipongtanate, Arpa
Yasaeng, Churairat
Virankabutra, Tanit
Chutipongtanate, Somchai
Systematic comparison of four point-of-care methods versus the reference laboratory measurement of hemoglobin in the surgical ICU setting: a cross-sectional method comparison study
title Systematic comparison of four point-of-care methods versus the reference laboratory measurement of hemoglobin in the surgical ICU setting: a cross-sectional method comparison study
title_full Systematic comparison of four point-of-care methods versus the reference laboratory measurement of hemoglobin in the surgical ICU setting: a cross-sectional method comparison study
title_fullStr Systematic comparison of four point-of-care methods versus the reference laboratory measurement of hemoglobin in the surgical ICU setting: a cross-sectional method comparison study
title_full_unstemmed Systematic comparison of four point-of-care methods versus the reference laboratory measurement of hemoglobin in the surgical ICU setting: a cross-sectional method comparison study
title_short Systematic comparison of four point-of-care methods versus the reference laboratory measurement of hemoglobin in the surgical ICU setting: a cross-sectional method comparison study
title_sort systematic comparison of four point-of-care methods versus the reference laboratory measurement of hemoglobin in the surgical icu setting: a cross-sectional method comparison study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7175548/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32321425
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01008-8
work_keys_str_mv AT chutipongtanatearpa systematiccomparisonoffourpointofcaremethodsversusthereferencelaboratorymeasurementofhemoglobininthesurgicalicusettingacrosssectionalmethodcomparisonstudy
AT yasaengchurairat systematiccomparisonoffourpointofcaremethodsversusthereferencelaboratorymeasurementofhemoglobininthesurgicalicusettingacrosssectionalmethodcomparisonstudy
AT virankabutratanit systematiccomparisonoffourpointofcaremethodsversusthereferencelaboratorymeasurementofhemoglobininthesurgicalicusettingacrosssectionalmethodcomparisonstudy
AT chutipongtanatesomchai systematiccomparisonoffourpointofcaremethodsversusthereferencelaboratorymeasurementofhemoglobininthesurgicalicusettingacrosssectionalmethodcomparisonstudy