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

Kód výsledku v 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>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11140/16:10311851

Výsledek na webu

<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>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

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

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

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

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

FP - Ostatní lékařské obory

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2016

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

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

Název periodika

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

ISSN

1387-1307

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

30

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

6

Stát vydavatele periodika

DE - Spolková republika Německo

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

949-956

Kód UT WoS článku

000387229400026

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-84945314582