| Literature DB >> 27880783 |
Ramona C Dolscheid-Pommerich1, Sarah Dolscheid2, Daniel Grigutsch3, Birgit Stoffel-Wagner1, Ingo Graeff4.
Abstract
Fulfilling the requirements of point-of-care testing (POCT) training regarding proper execution of measurements and compliance with internal and external quality control specifications is a great challenge. Our aim was to compare the values of the highly critical parameter hemoglobin (Hb) determined with POCT devices and central laboratory analyzer in the highly vulnerable setting of an emergency department in a supra maximal care hospital to assess the quality of POCT performance. In 2548 patients, Hb measurements using POCT devices (POCT-Hb) were compared with Hb measurements performed at the central laboratory (Hb-ZL). Additionally, sub collectives (WHO anemia classification, patients with Hb <8 g/dl and suprageriatric patients (age >85y.) were analyzed. Overall, the correlation between POCT-Hb and Hb-ZL was highly significant (r = 0.96, p<0.001). Mean difference was -0.44g/dl. POCT-Hb values tended to be higher than Hb-ZL values (t(2547) = 36.1, p<0.001). Standard deviation of the differences was 0.62 g/dl. Only in 26 patients (1%), absolute differences >2.5g/dl occurred. McNemar´s test revealed significant differences regarding anemia diagnosis according to WHO definition for male, female and total patients (♂ p<0.001; ♀ p<0.001, total p<0.001). Hb-ZL resulted significantly more often in anemia diagnosis. In samples with Hb<8g/dl, McNemar´s test yielded no significant difference (p = 0.169). In suprageriatric patients, McNemar´s test revealed significant differences regarding anemia diagnosis according to WHO definition in male, female and total patients (♂ p<0.01; ♀ p = 0.002, total p<0.001). The difference between Hb-ZL and POCT-Hb with Hb<8g/dl was not statistically significant (<8g/dl, p = 1.000). Overall, we found a highly significant correlation between the analyzed hemoglobin concentration measurement methods, i.e. POCT devices and at the central laboratory. The results confirm the successful implementation of the presented POCT concept. Nevertheless some limitations could be identified in anemic patients stressing the importance of carefully examining clinically implausible results.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27880783 PMCID: PMC5120806 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166521
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Responsibility levels of POCT at UKB.
| Responsibility level | Detailed areas of responsibility |
|---|---|
| Medical director of the central laboratory and POCT coordination | |
| Internal and external quality control | |
| Current device status (middleware) | |
| User administration | |
| Management of devices | |
| Management of back-up devices | |
| Checking for outliers | |
| Measurements with back-up devices | |
| Purchase ordering of reagents | |
| Execution of ring trials | |
| Hotline | |
| Performance statistics | |
| User training: blood gas analysis, blood glucose, coagulation | |
| User | |
| Measurement of patient sample | |
| Measurement of control sample | |
| Consumables: Refilling, emptying, ordering | |
| Manufacturers | |
| Maintenance and repair of the devices |
Table 1 shows the responsibility levels and detailed areas of responsibility. The POCT concept distinguishes three responsibility levels: the medical director of the central laboratory with the POCT coordination, users and manufacturers. Detailed areas of responsibility are presented.
Absolute difference between POCT-Hb and Hb-ZL measurements.
| Absolute Difference | Samples (%) |
|---|---|
| 0.0 | 89 (3.5) |
| 0.1–0.5 | 1148 (44.9) |
| 0.6–1.0 | 1157 (45.4) |
| 1.1–1.5 | 94 (3.7) |
| 1.6–2.0 | 21 (0.8) |
| 2.1–2.5 | 13 (0.5) |
| >2.5 | 26 (1.0) |
Table 2 shows the absolute and percentage samples grouped in 0.4 g/dl steps based on absolute differences (deviations up to 0.1% in percentage distribution are due to rounding).
Descriptive statistics of the collective.
| Age (years) | Number | Min abs diff. | Max abs. diff. | Mean diff. (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <30 | 372 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 0.6 (0.32) |
| 30–64 | 1157 | 0.0 | 7.2 | 0.6 (0.52) |
| 65–84 | 827 | 0.0 | 5.9 | 0.6 (0.5) |
| >85 | 190 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 0.5 (0.42) |
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics with mean values ± SD (standard deviation), min and max according to age groups (abs diff. = absolute difference).
Fig 1Correlation between the two measurement methods POCT-Hb and HB-ZL.
Fig 1 shows the correlation between parameters POCT-Hb (g/dl) measured with POCT devices (Co-oximetry) and Hb-ZL (g/dl) measured with the SDS hemoglobin method.
Fig 2Bland-Altman plot showing the difference of the HB measurements.
Fig 2 depicts the difference of the Hb values (Hb-ZL and POCT-Hb) calculated for each patient and plotted against the mean value of both measurements ((Hb-ZL + POCT-Hb)/2). The red line shows the mean difference of the measurement values (-0.44 g/dl). The dashed blue lines represent the limits of agreement within which 95% of differences between measurements by the two methods are expected to lie (-1.66 g/dl and +0.77 g/dl).
Cross tables WHO classification.
| POCT-Hb in (%) | POCT-Hb out (%) | sens. 83.9% | ||
| spec. 97.6% | ||||
| Hb-ZL in (%) | 380 (94.5) | 73 (7.6) | 453 | |
| Hb-ZL out (%) | 22 (5.5) | 888 (92.4) | 910 | |
| 402 (100) | 961 (100) | 1363 | ||
| POCT-Hb in (%) | POCT-Hb out (%) | sens. 76.5% | ||
| spec. 97.7% | ||||
| Hb-ZL in (%) | 277 (93.6) | 85 (9.6) | 362 | |
| Hb-ZL out (%) | 19 (6.4) | 804 (90.4) | 823 | |
| 296 (100) | 889 (100) | 1185 | ||
| POCT-Hb in (%) | POCT-Hb out (%) | sens. 80.6% | ||
| spec. 97.6% | ||||
| Hb-ZL in (%) | 657 (94.1) | 158 (8.5) | 815 | |
| Hb-ZL out (%) | 41 (5.9) | 1692 (91.5) | 1733 | |
| 698 (100) | 1850 (100) | 2548 |
Table 4 shows the cross tables with sensitivity and specificity for POCT measurement in anemic patients according to WHO classification (male <13g/dl, female <12g/dl) in the whole collective and separately by gender. “In” indicates that patients are classified as anemic by the respective method (POCT, ZL), whereas “out” indicates that patients fall outside of the anemia cut-off according to the respective method.
Cross table Hb <8g/dl.
| Hb <8g/dl | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| POCT-Hb in (%) | POCT-Hb out (%) | sens. 71.2% | ||
| spec. 99.6% | ||||
| Hb-ZL in (%) | 42 (82.4) | 17 (0.7) | 59 | |
| Hb-ZL out (%) | 9 (17.6) | 2480 (99.3) | 2489 | |
| 51 (100) | 2497 (100) | 2548 |
Table 5 shows the cross table with sensitivity and specificity for POCT measurement in anemic patients with Hb <8g/dl. “In” indicates that patients are classified as anemic by the respective method (POCT, ZL), whereas “out” indicates that patients fall outside of the anemia cut-off according to the respective method.
Cross tables in suprageriatric patients.
| POCT-Hb in (%) | POCT-Hb out (%) | sens. 82.2% | ||
| spec. 100% | ||||
| Hb-ZL in (%) | 37 (100) | 8 (26.7) | 45 | |
| Hb-ZL out (%) | 0 (0) | 22 (73.3) | 22 | |
| 37 (100) | 30 (100) | 67 | ||
| POCT-Hb in (%) | POCT-Hb out (%) | sens. 70.6% | ||
| spec. 97.2% | ||||
| Hb-ZL in (%) | 36 (94.7) | 15 (17.6) | 51 | |
| Hb-ZL out (%) | 2 (5.3) | 70 (82.4) | 72 | |
| 38 (100) | 85 (100) | 123 | ||
| POCT-Hb in (%) | POCT-Hb out (%) | sens. 76.0% | ||
| spec. 97.9% | ||||
| Hb-ZL in (%) | 73 (97.3) | 23 (20.0) | 96 | |
| Hb-ZL out (%) | 2 (2.7) | 92 (80.0) | 94 | |
| 75 (100) | 115 (100) | 190 | ||
| POCT-Hb | POCT-Hb in (%) | POCT-Hb out (%) | sens. 83.3% | |
| spec. 99.5% | ||||
| Hb-ZL in (%) | 5 (83.3) | 1 (0.5) | 6 | |
| Hb-ZL out (%) | 1 (16.7) | 183 (99.5) | 184 | |
| 6 (100) | 184 (100) | 190 |
Table 6 shows the cross tables with sensitivity and specificity for POCT measurement according to WHO classification (male <13g/dl, female <12g/dl) in the whole suprageriatric (age >85 years) collective and separately by gender and for Hb <8g/dl. “In” indicates that patients are classified as anemic by the respective method (POCT, ZL), whereas “out” indicates that patients fall outside of the anemia cut-off according to the respective method.