BACKGROUND: The StatSensor® Xpress-i™, a point-of-care system for blood creatinine measurement, offers patients the possibility of self-monitoring creatinine. In this study, the analytical performance of the StatSensor® for both detecting current renal function and monitoring renal (dys)function in kidney transplant patients was examined. METHODS: Accuracy of the StatSensor® with capillary and venous whole blood was evaluated and compared to an isotopic dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS)-traceable enzymatic creatinine test in venous serum (n=138). Twenty Li-heparin samples were compared to the IDMS reference method performed by a Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM)-listed reference laboratory (RfB, Bonn, Germany). To evaluate StatSensor®'s suitability to monitor kidney function, both venous and capillary samples were obtained in 20 hospitalized transplantation patients. Venous samples were analyzed with an IDMS-traceable enzymatic test, capillary samples were measured using the StatSensor®. For all 2-day intervals, percentage change in creatinine was compared between both methods. RESULTS: The StatSensor® did not meet total allowable error criterion of 6.9%. Average overall CVa for the StatSensor® was 10.4% and 5.2% for capillary and venous whole blood results, respectively. Overall CVa for the central laboratory serum creatinine method was <1.5%. For monitoring renal (dys)function, total agreement of the StatSensor® with an IDMS-traceable enzymatic test was 68% using a 10% Δ change. No significant differences were found between the changes observed by both methods. CONCLUSIONS: Capillary blood testing with the StatSensor® is not advisable for determining current renal function with a single creatinine measurement in kidney transplant patients, mainly due to excessive analytical imprecision. However, our results suggest that capillary blood testing with the StatSensor® can be used for daily trend monitoring of kidney function after renal transplantation.
BACKGROUND: The StatSensor® Xpress-i™, a point-of-care system for blood creatinine measurement, offers patients the possibility of self-monitoring creatinine. In this study, the analytical performance of the StatSensor® for both detecting current renal function and monitoring renal (dys)function in kidney transplant patients was examined. METHODS: Accuracy of the StatSensor® with capillary and venous whole blood was evaluated and compared to an isotopic dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS)-traceable enzymatic creatinine test in venous serum (n=138). Twenty Li-heparin samples were compared to the IDMS reference method performed by a Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM)-listed reference laboratory (RfB, Bonn, Germany). To evaluate StatSensor®'s suitability to monitor kidney function, both venous and capillary samples were obtained in 20 hospitalized transplantation patients. Venous samples were analyzed with an IDMS-traceable enzymatic test, capillary samples were measured using the StatSensor®. For all 2-day intervals, percentage change in creatinine was compared between both methods. RESULTS: The StatSensor® did not meet total allowable error criterion of 6.9%. Average overall CVa for the StatSensor® was 10.4% and 5.2% for capillary and venous whole blood results, respectively. Overall CVa for the central laboratory serum creatinine method was <1.5%. For monitoring renal (dys)function, total agreement of the StatSensor® with an IDMS-traceable enzymatic test was 68% using a 10% Δ change. No significant differences were found between the changes observed by both methods. CONCLUSIONS: Capillary blood testing with the StatSensor® is not advisable for determining current renal function with a single creatinine measurement in kidney transplant patients, mainly due to excessive analytical imprecision. However, our results suggest that capillary blood testing with the StatSensor® can be used for daily trend monitoring of kidney function after renal transplantation.
Authors: Mark Corbett; Ana Duarte; Alexis Llewellyn; James Altunkaya; Melissa Harden; Martine Harris; Simon Walker; Stephen Palmer; Sofia Dias; Marta Soares Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Wenxin Wang; Céline van Lint; Sandra van Dijk; Willem-Paul Brinkman; Ton Jm Rövekamp; Mark A Neerincx; Ton J Rabelink; Paul Jm van der Boog Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-09-26 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Raymond Neil Dalton; Timothy Scott Isbell; Ryan Ferguson; Louis Fiore; Andrei Malic; Jeffrey Anton DuBois Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Céline L van Lint; Paul Jm van der Boog; Wenxin Wang; Willem-Paul Brinkman; Ton Jm Rövekamp; Mark A Neerincx; Ton J Rabelink; Sandra van Dijk Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Anthony J Carden; Edgardo S Salcedo; Nam K Tran; Eric Gross; Jennifer Mattice; Jan Shepard; Joseph M Galante Journal: Trauma Surg Acute Care Open Date: 2016-07-12