{"title":"点护理与中心实验室测量电解质和血红蛋白:对三级护理医院危重患者的前瞻性观察研究。","authors":"Sangeeta Sahoo, Jyotiranjan Sahoo, Neha Singh, Upendra Hansda, Satyabrata Guru, Nitish Topno","doi":"10.4103/ijciis.ijciis_2_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A blood gas analyzer is a point-of-care (POC) testing device used in the Emergency Department (ED) to manage critically ill patients. However, there were differences in results found from blood gas analyzers for hemoglobin (Hgb) and electrolytes parameters. We conducted a comparative validity study in ED in patients who had requirements of venous gas analysis, complete blood count, and electrolytes. The objective was to find the correlation of Hgb, sodium (Na<sup>+</sup>), and potassium (K<sup>+</sup>) values between the blood gas analyzer and laboratory autoanalyzer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 206 paired samples were tested for Hgb, Na<sup>+</sup>, and K<sup>+</sup>. Total 4.6 ml of venous blood was collected from each participant, 0.6 ml was used for blood gas analysis as POC testing and 4 ml was sent to the central laboratory for electrolyte and Hgb estimation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean difference between POC and laboratory method was 0.608 ± 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.80; <i>P</i> < 0.001) for Hgb, 0.92 ± 3.5 (95% CI, 0.44-1.40) for Na<sup>+</sup>, and 0.238 ± 0.62 (95% CI, -0.32-0.15; <i>P</i> < 0.001) for K<sup>+</sup>. POC testing and laboratory method showed a strong positive correlation with Pearson correlation coefficient (<i>r</i>) of 0.873, 0.928, and 0.793 for Hgb, Na<sup>+</sup>, and K<sup>+</sup>, respectively (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although there was a statistical difference found between the two methods, it was under the United States Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment range. Hence, starting the therapy according to the blood gas analyzer results may be beneficial to the patient and improve the outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":13938,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science","volume":"12 3","pages":"160-164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9728077/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Point-of-care versus central laboratory measurements of electrolytes and hemoglobin: A prospective observational study in critically ill patients in a tertiary care hospital.\",\"authors\":\"Sangeeta Sahoo, Jyotiranjan Sahoo, Neha Singh, Upendra Hansda, Satyabrata Guru, Nitish Topno\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ijciis.ijciis_2_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A blood gas analyzer is a point-of-care (POC) testing device used in the Emergency Department (ED) to manage critically ill patients. However, there were differences in results found from blood gas analyzers for hemoglobin (Hgb) and electrolytes parameters. We conducted a comparative validity study in ED in patients who had requirements of venous gas analysis, complete blood count, and electrolytes. The objective was to find the correlation of Hgb, sodium (Na<sup>+</sup>), and potassium (K<sup>+</sup>) values between the blood gas analyzer and laboratory autoanalyzer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 206 paired samples were tested for Hgb, Na<sup>+</sup>, and K<sup>+</sup>. Total 4.6 ml of venous blood was collected from each participant, 0.6 ml was used for blood gas analysis as POC testing and 4 ml was sent to the central laboratory for electrolyte and Hgb estimation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean difference between POC and laboratory method was 0.608 ± 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.80; <i>P</i> < 0.001) for Hgb, 0.92 ± 3.5 (95% CI, 0.44-1.40) for Na<sup>+</sup>, and 0.238 ± 0.62 (95% CI, -0.32-0.15; <i>P</i> < 0.001) for K<sup>+</sup>. POC testing and laboratory method showed a strong positive correlation with Pearson correlation coefficient (<i>r</i>) of 0.873, 0.928, and 0.793 for Hgb, Na<sup>+</sup>, and K<sup>+</sup>, respectively (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although there was a statistical difference found between the two methods, it was under the United States Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment range. Hence, starting the therapy according to the blood gas analyzer results may be beneficial to the patient and improve the outcome.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13938,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science\",\"volume\":\"12 3\",\"pages\":\"160-164\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9728077/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijciis.ijciis_2_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijciis.ijciis_2_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Point-of-care versus central laboratory measurements of electrolytes and hemoglobin: A prospective observational study in critically ill patients in a tertiary care hospital.
Background: A blood gas analyzer is a point-of-care (POC) testing device used in the Emergency Department (ED) to manage critically ill patients. However, there were differences in results found from blood gas analyzers for hemoglobin (Hgb) and electrolytes parameters. We conducted a comparative validity study in ED in patients who had requirements of venous gas analysis, complete blood count, and electrolytes. The objective was to find the correlation of Hgb, sodium (Na+), and potassium (K+) values between the blood gas analyzer and laboratory autoanalyzer.
Methods: A total of 206 paired samples were tested for Hgb, Na+, and K+. Total 4.6 ml of venous blood was collected from each participant, 0.6 ml was used for blood gas analysis as POC testing and 4 ml was sent to the central laboratory for electrolyte and Hgb estimation.
Results: The mean difference between POC and laboratory method was 0.608 ± 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.80; P < 0.001) for Hgb, 0.92 ± 3.5 (95% CI, 0.44-1.40) for Na+, and 0.238 ± 0.62 (95% CI, -0.32-0.15; P < 0.001) for K+. POC testing and laboratory method showed a strong positive correlation with Pearson correlation coefficient (r) of 0.873, 0.928, and 0.793 for Hgb, Na+, and K+, respectively (P < 0.001).
Conclusion: Although there was a statistical difference found between the two methods, it was under the United States Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment range. Hence, starting the therapy according to the blood gas analyzer results may be beneficial to the patient and improve the outcome.
期刊介绍:
IJCIIS encourages research, education and dissemination of knowledge in the field of Critical Illness and Injury Science across the world thus promoting translational research by striking a synergy between basic science, clinical medicine and public health. The Journal intends to bring together scientists and academicians in the emergency intensive care and promote translational synergy between Laboratory Science, Clinical Medicine and Public Health. The Journal invites Original Articles, Clinical Investigations, Epidemiological Analysis, Data Protocols, Case Reports, Clinical Photographs, review articles and special commentaries. Students, Residents, Academicians, Public Health experts and scientists are all encouraged to be a part of this initiative by contributing, reviewing and promoting scientific works and science.