Boris Mraovic1, Eric S Schwenk, Richard H Epstein. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Jefferson Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, USA. boris.mraovic@jefferson.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about the use of point-of-care (POC) glucose meters in the hospital setting. Accuracy has been questioned especially in critically ill patients. Although commonly used in intensive care units and operating rooms, POC meters were not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for such use. Data on POC glucose meter performance during anesthesia are lacking. We evaluated accuracy of a POC meter in the intraoperative setting. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 4,333 intraoperative records in which at least one intraoperative glucose was measured using electronic medical records at a large academic hospital. We evaluated the accuracy of a POC glucose meter (ACCU-CHEK® Inform, Roche Pharmaceuticals) based on the 176 simultaneous central laboratory (CL) blood glucose (BG) measurements that were found (i.e., documented collection times within 5 minutes). Point-of-care and central lab BG differences were analyzed by Bland-Altman and revised error grid analysis (rEGA). RESULTS: Mean POC BG was 163.4 ± 64.7 mg/dl [minimum (min) 48 mg/dl, maximum (max) 537 mg/dl] and mean CL BG was 162.6 ± 65.1 mg/dl (min 44 mg/dl, max 502 mg/dl). Mean absolute difference between POC and CL BG was 24.3 mg/dl. Mean absolute relative difference was 16.5% with standard deviation 26.4%. Point-of-care measurements showed a bias of 0.8 relative to the corresponding CL value, with a precision of 39.0 mg/dl. Forty (23%) POC BG values fell outside the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guideline and 3.4% POC measurements fell in zones C and D of the rEGA plot. CONCLUSIONS: The tested POC glucose meter performed poorly compared to a CL analyzer intraoperatively. Perioperative clinicians should be aware of limitations of specific POC glucose meters, and routine use of POC glucose meters as sole measurement devices in the intraoperative period should be carefully considered.
BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about the use of point-of-care (POC) glucose meters in the hospital setting. Accuracy has been questioned especially in critically illpatients. Although commonly used in intensive care units and operating rooms, POC meters were not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for such use. Data on POC glucose meter performance during anesthesia are lacking. We evaluated accuracy of a POC meter in the intraoperative setting. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 4,333 intraoperative records in which at least one intraoperative glucose was measured using electronic medical records at a large academic hospital. We evaluated the accuracy of a POC glucose meter (ACCU-CHEK® Inform, Roche Pharmaceuticals) based on the 176 simultaneous central laboratory (CL) blood glucose (BG) measurements that were found (i.e., documented collection times within 5 minutes). Point-of-care and central lab BG differences were analyzed by Bland-Altman and revised error grid analysis (rEGA). RESULTS: Mean POC BG was 163.4 ± 64.7 mg/dl [minimum (min) 48 mg/dl, maximum (max) 537 mg/dl] and mean CL BG was 162.6 ± 65.1 mg/dl (min 44 mg/dl, max 502 mg/dl). Mean absolute difference between POC and CL BG was 24.3 mg/dl. Mean absolute relative difference was 16.5% with standard deviation 26.4%. Point-of-care measurements showed a bias of 0.8 relative to the corresponding CL value, with a precision of 39.0 mg/dl. Forty (23%) POC BG values fell outside the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guideline and 3.4% POC measurements fell in zones C and D of the rEGA plot. CONCLUSIONS: The tested POC glucose meter performed poorly compared to a CL analyzer intraoperatively. Perioperative clinicians should be aware of limitations of specific POC glucose meters, and routine use of POC glucose meters as sole measurement devices in the intraoperative period should be carefully considered.
Authors: Atul Kulkarni; Manoj Saxena; Grant Price; Michael J O'Leary; Theresa Jacques; John A Myburgh Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-11-23 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: C Dana Critchell; Vincent Savarese; Amy Callahan; Christine Aboud; Serge Jabbour; Paul Marik Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Brad S Karon; Leslie J Donato; Chelsie M Larsen; Lindsay K Siebenaler; Amy E Wells; Christina M Wood-Wentz; Mary E Shirk-Marienau; Timothy B Curry Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 7.892