Comparison of the accuracy of hemoglobin point of care testing using HemoCue and GEM Premier 3000 with automated hematology analyzer in emergency room

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00669806%3A_____%2F16%3A10311851" target="_blank" >RIV/00669806:_____/16:10311851 - isvavai.cz</a>

Alternative codes found

RIV/00216208:11140/16:10311851

Result on the web

<a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10877-015-9799-z" target="_blank" >http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10877-015-9799-z</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-015-9799-z" target="_blank" >10.1007/s10877-015-9799-z</a>

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Comparison of the accuracy of hemoglobin point of care testing using HemoCue and GEM Premier 3000 with automated hematology analyzer in emergency room

Original language description

The laboratory analysis provides accurate, but time consuming hemoglobin level estimation especially in the emergency setting. The reliability of time-sparing point of care devices (POCT) remains uncertain. We tested two POCT devices accuracy (HemoCue(R)201+ and Gem(R)PremierTM3000) in routine emergency department workflow. Blood samples taken from patients admitted to the emergency department were analyzed for hemoglobin concentration using a laboratory reference Beckman Coulter LH 750 (HBLAB), the HemoCue (HBHC) and the Gem Premier 3000 (HBGEM). Pairwise comparison for each device and HbLAB was performed using correlation and the Bland-Altman methods. The reliability of transfusion decision was assessed using three-zone error grid. A total of 292 measurements were performed in 99 patients. Mean hemoglobin level were 115 +- 33, 110 +- 28 and 111 +- 30 g/l for HbHC, HbGEM and HbLAB respectively. A significant correlation was observed for both devices: HbHC versus HbLAB (r2 = 0.93, p < 0.001) and HBGEM versus HBLAB (r2 = 0.86, p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman method revealed bias of MINUS SIGN 3.7 g/l (limits of agreement MINUS SIGN 20.9 to 13.5) for HBHC and HBLAB and 2.5 g/l (MINUS SIGN 18.6 to 23.5) for HBGEM and HBLAB, which significantly differed between POCT devices (p < 0.001). Using the error grid methodology: 94 or 91 % of values (HbHC and HbGEM) fell in the zone of acceptable difference (A), whereas 0 and 1 % (HbHC and HbGEM) were unacceptable (zone C). The absolute accuracy of tested POCT devices was low though reaching a high level of correlation with laboratory measurement. The results of the Morey's error grid were unfavorable for both POCT devices.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

J_x - Unclassified - Peer-reviewed scientific article (Jimp, Jsc and Jost)

CEP classification

FP - Other medical fields

OECD FORD branch

—

Project

—

Continuities

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Publication year

2016

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Name of the periodical

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

ISSN

1387-1307

e-ISSN

—

Volume of the periodical

30

Issue of the periodical within the volume

6

Country of publishing house

DE - GERMANY

Number of pages

8

Pages from-to

949-956

UT code for WoS article

000387229400026

EID of the result in the Scopus database

2-s2.0-84945314582