| Literature DB >> 29152319 |
Levent Dirikolu1, Pamela Waller1, Mona Landry Waguespack1, Frank Michael Andrews2, Michael Layne Keowen2, Stephen David Gaunt3.
Abstract
This study evaluated the usage of Beckman Coulter AU680 analyzers for measurement of TCO 2 in horse serum, and the effect of sodium bicarbonate administrations on serum TCO 2 levels in resting horses. Treatment of horses with sodium bicarbonate did not result in any adverse events. Mean TCO 2 concentration was significantly higher from 1 to 8 h in the sodium bicarbonate-treated horses compared to the untreated controls. Within an hour, administration of sodium bicarbonate increased the TCO 2 level from 31.5 ± -2.5 (SD) to 34.0 ± 2.65 (SD) mmol/L and at 2-8 h post-administration, the TCO 2 level was above the 36 mmol/L cut-off level. In all quality control analysis of Australian standard by Beckman Coulter AU680 analyzer, the instrument slightly over estimated the TCO 2 level but the values were in close agreement with mean TCO 2 level being 38.03 with ± 0.87 mmol/L (SD). Expanded uncertainty was calculated using different levels of confidence interval. Based on 99.5% confidence interval using 0.805% expanded uncertainty using mean measured concentration of 38.05 mmol/L, it was estimated that any race samples TCO 2 level higher than 38.5 mmol/L will be indicative of sodium bicarbonate administration using Beckman Coulter AU680 analyzer in Louisiana.Entities:
Keywords: Horses; TCO2; milkshake; sodium bicarbonate
Year: 2017 PMID: 29152319 PMCID: PMC5677778 DOI: 10.1002/vms3.82
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Med Sci ISSN: 2053-1095
Figure 1Mean ± SD TCO 2 concentrations at 0–8 h in control and sodium bicarbonate treated animals. Stars signify significant difference P < 0.05 compared to same time point.
Figure 2Mean ± SD TCO 2 concentrations at 24, 48, 72 and 96 h in control and treated animals.
The mean within‐run and between‐run accuracies and CVs for quality control samples at 14.86, 18.46 and 28.39 mmol/L
| Theoretical concentration | Measured concentration (mean ± SD) | Accuracy (%) (mean ± SD) | Coefficient of variation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Within‐run ( | |||
| 14.86 | 14.30 ± 0.85 | 96.3 ± 5.70 | 5.92 |
| 18.46 | 18.63 ± 0.44 | 100.9 ± 2.40 | 3.63 |
| 28.39 | 27.59 ± 1.53 | 97.17 ± 5.39 | 5.55 |
| Mean | 98.12 | 5 | |
| Between‐run ( | |||
| 14.86 | 14.62 ± 0.63 | 98.4 ± 4.21 | 4.28 |
| 18.46 | 18.46 ± 0.53 | 99 ± 2.85 | 2.85 |
| 28.39 | 28.22 ± 1.04 | 97.41 ± 3.67 | 3.70 |
| Mean | 98.3 | 3.61 | |
The mean within‐run and between‐run accuracies and CVs for Australian quality control sample at 36.01 (±0.17) mmol/L
| Theoretical Concentration | Measured concentration (mean ± SD) | Accuracy (%) (mean ± SD) | Coefficient of variation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Within‐run ( | |||
| 35.84 | 38.03 ± 0.87 | 106.0 ± 2.42 | 2.28 |
| Between‐run ( | |||
| 35.84 | 38.05 ± 0.61 | 106.2 ± 1.61 | 1.82 |
In order to have the highest margin of safety, it was assumed that the level in this quality control sample was 35.84 (36.01–0.17) mmol/L. Expanded uncertainty was also calculated based on different levels of confidence interval.