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。

Sangeeta Sahoo, Jyotiranjan Sahoo, Neha Singh, Upendra Hansda, Satyabrata Guru, Nitish Topno
{"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,&nbsp;Jyotiranjan Sahoo,&nbsp;Neha Singh,&nbsp;Upendra Hansda,&nbsp;Satyabrata Guru,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Jyotiranjan Sahoo,&nbsp;Neha Singh,&nbsp;Upendra Hansda,&nbsp;Satyabrata Guru,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:血气分析仪是急诊科(ED)管理危重病人的一种即时检测设备。然而,血气分析仪对血红蛋白(Hgb)和电解质参数的检测结果存在差异。我们对有静脉气体分析、全血细胞计数和电解质要求的ED患者进行了比较有效性研究。目的是找出血气分析仪和实验室自动分析仪之间Hgb、钠(Na+)和钾(K+)值的相关性。方法:对206份配对样本进行Hgb、Na+、K+检测。每位参与者共采集4.6 ml静脉血,0.6 ml用于血气分析作为POC测试,4 ml送至中心实验室进行电解质和Hgb估算。结果:POC与实验室方法的平均差异为0.608±1.41(95%可信区间[CI], 0.41-0.80;P < 0.001), Na+为0.92±3.5 (95% CI, 0.44-1.40), Na+为0.238±0.62 (95% CI, -0.32-0.15;P < 0.001)。POC检测与实验室法检测Hgb、Na+、K+的Pearson相关系数(r)分别为0.873、0.928、0.793 (P < 0.001),呈正相关。结论:两种方法虽然存在统计学差异,但均在美国临床实验室改进修正案的范围内。因此,根据血气分析仪的结果开始治疗可能对患者有益,并改善预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
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.
期刊最新文献
Effect of temperature and duration of cardiopulmonary bypass on cerebral saturation. Prospective observational study to measure the incidence of chest pain and its association with perioperative factors among parturients undergoing lower segment cesarean section with subarachnoid blocks. Response to: "Before attributing basilar artery aneurysm and pericardial tamponade to leptospirosis, alternative causes must be ruled out". Assessment of quality of life in follow-up patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: A prospective, observational study from a tertiary care center. Association of obesity and mortality in patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: A retrospective cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1