Literature DB >> 26507548

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

Jan Zatloukal1, Jiri Pouska2, Jakub Kletecka2, Richard Pradl2, Jan Benes2.   

Abstract

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®201+ and Gem®Premier™3000) 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 -3.7 g/l (limits of agreement -20.9 to 13.5) for HBHC and HBLAB and 2.5 g/l (-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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Blood transfusion; Emergency medicine; Hemoglobin; Hemoglobinometry; Hemorrhage; Point of care systems

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26507548     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-015-9799-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  27 in total

1.  Comparison between the HemoCue and an automated counter for measuring hemoglobin.

Authors:  Adriana de A Paiva; Patrícia H C Rondó; Silmara S de B Silva; Maria do R D O Latorre
Journal:  Rev Saude Publica       Date:  2004-08-09       Impact factor: 2.106

2.  Measurement of haemoglobin using single drops of skin puncture blood: is precision acceptable?

Authors:  A M Conway; R F Hinchliffe; J Earland; L M Anderson
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Performance evaluation of a noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring device.

Authors:  Etienne Gayat; Antoine Bodin; Caroline Sportiello; Mireille Boisson; Jean-François Dreyfus; Emmanuel Mathieu; Marc Fischler
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 5.721

4.  Capillary versus venous haemoglobin determination in the assessment of healthy blood donors.

Authors:  A J Patel; R Wesley; S F Leitman; B J Bryant
Journal:  Vox Sang       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 2.144

5.  Anemia-induced increase in the bleeding time: implications for treatment of nonsurgical blood loss.

Authors:  C R Valeri; G Cassidy; L E Pivacek; G Ragno; W Lieberthal; J P Crowley; S F Khuri; J Loscalzo
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.157

Review 6.  Management of bleeding and coagulopathy following major trauma: an updated European guideline.

Authors:  Donat R Spahn; Bertil Bouillon; Vladimir Cerny; Timothy J Coats; Jacques Duranteau; Enrique Fernández-Mondéjar; Daniela Filipescu; Beverley J Hunt; Radko Komadina; Giuseppe Nardi; Edmund Neugebauer; Yves Ozier; Louis Riddez; Arthur Schultz; Jean-Louis Vincent; Rolf Rossaint
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2013-04-19       Impact factor: 9.097

7.  Evaluation of point-of-care haemoglobin measuring devices: a comparison of Radical-7™ pulse co-oximetry, HemoCue(®) and laboratory haemoglobin measurements in obstetric patients*.

Authors:  V A Skelton; N Wijayasinghe; S Sharafudeen; A Sange; N S Parry; C Junghans
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 6.955

8.  Accuracy of point-of-care-testing (POCT) for determining hemoglobin concentrations.

Authors:  H Gehring; C Hornberger; L Dibbelt; A Rothsigkeit; K Gerlach; J Schumacher; P Schmucker
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.105

9.  Use of a rapid arterial blood gas analyzer to estimate blood hemoglobin concentration among critically ill adults.

Authors:  Joel G Ray; Julia R Post; Cindy Hamielec
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2001-11-19       Impact factor: 9.097

10.  Accuracy of noninvasive hemoglobin and invasive point-of-care hemoglobin testing compared with a laboratory analyzer.

Authors:  N Shah; E A Osea; G J Martinez
Journal:  Int J Lab Hematol       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 2.877

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Methods and analyzers for hemoglobin measurement in clinical laboratories and field settings.

Authors:  Ralph D Whitehead; Zuguo Mei; Carine Mapango; Maria Elena D Jefferds
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 5.691

2.  Multicenter comparison of three intraoperative hemoglobin trend monitoring methods.

Authors:  Richard L Applegate Ii; Patricia M Applegate; Maxime Cannesson; Prith Peiris; Beth L Ladlie; Klaus Torp
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 2.502

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.