i-STAT Alinity护理点分析仪的评估

Mee-Yin Lee, Sian-Foong Lim, L. Lam
{"title":"i-STAT Alinity护理点分析仪的评估","authors":"Mee-Yin Lee, Sian-Foong Lim, L. Lam","doi":"10.1097/POC.0000000000000190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate the analytical performance of CG4+ and CHEM8+ cartridges on the i-STAT Alinity analyzer prior to use in patient testing. We also evaluated the ease of use, design, and safety features to determine its suitability for use by the clinicians in our hospital. Methods The Abbott i-STAT System Performance Verification Protocol was observed for the imprecision study and was performed over the course of 2 days using 2 levels of control material (Abbott i-STAT TriControl Level 1 and Level 3). The CLSI-EP6-A guideline was used to verify the assay reportable range performance using 5 levels of linearity material (Abbott i-Stat TriControl Calibration Verification Set). The method comparison study was performed using up to 60 leftover anonymized heparinized whole-blood samples and serum samples against existing laboratory instruments (Siemens Rapidpoint 500, Abbott Architect C16000, and Sysmex XN9000). Results Precision was good (coefficient of variation <2%) for electrolytes, glucose, lactate, and pH, and satisfactory (coefficient of variation <5.2%) for blood gases, urea, creatinine, and hematocrit. Linearity concentrations spanning the analytical measuring ranges were demonstrated for all analytes. Method comparison studies revealed that agreement between the i-STAT Alinity analyzer and the central laboratory analyzers was good and clinically acceptable. Conclusions The i-STAT Alinity analyzer has good analytical performance, and we established the analyzer meets our safety and regulatory requirements and therefore suitable for use in our hospital as a point-of-care testing device.","PeriodicalId":20262,"journal":{"name":"Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology","volume":"12 1","pages":"48 - 55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the i-STAT Alinity Point-of-Care Analyzer\",\"authors\":\"Mee-Yin Lee, Sian-Foong Lim, L. Lam\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/POC.0000000000000190\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate the analytical performance of CG4+ and CHEM8+ cartridges on the i-STAT Alinity analyzer prior to use in patient testing. We also evaluated the ease of use, design, and safety features to determine its suitability for use by the clinicians in our hospital. Methods The Abbott i-STAT System Performance Verification Protocol was observed for the imprecision study and was performed over the course of 2 days using 2 levels of control material (Abbott i-STAT TriControl Level 1 and Level 3). The CLSI-EP6-A guideline was used to verify the assay reportable range performance using 5 levels of linearity material (Abbott i-Stat TriControl Calibration Verification Set). The method comparison study was performed using up to 60 leftover anonymized heparinized whole-blood samples and serum samples against existing laboratory instruments (Siemens Rapidpoint 500, Abbott Architect C16000, and Sysmex XN9000). Results Precision was good (coefficient of variation <2%) for electrolytes, glucose, lactate, and pH, and satisfactory (coefficient of variation <5.2%) for blood gases, urea, creatinine, and hematocrit. Linearity concentrations spanning the analytical measuring ranges were demonstrated for all analytes. Method comparison studies revealed that agreement between the i-STAT Alinity analyzer and the central laboratory analyzers was good and clinically acceptable. Conclusions The i-STAT Alinity analyzer has good analytical performance, and we established the analyzer meets our safety and regulatory requirements and therefore suitable for use in our hospital as a point-of-care testing device.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20262,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"48 - 55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/POC.0000000000000190\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/POC.0000000000000190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本研究的目的是评估在i-STAT Alinity分析仪上使用CG4+和CHEM8+试剂盒进行患者检测之前的分析性能。我们还对其易用性、设计和安全性进行了评估,以确定其是否适合我院临床医生使用。方法采用雅培i-STAT系统性能验证协议进行不精确研究,使用2级对照材料(雅培i-STAT TriControl 1级和3级)进行为期2天的研究。使用5级线性材料(雅培i-STAT TriControl校准验证集),使用CLSI-EP6-A指南验证分析可报告范围性能。使用多达60份剩余的匿名肝素化全血样本和血清样本与现有实验室仪器(Siemens Rapidpoint 500、Abbott Architect C16000和Sysmex XN9000)进行方法比较研究。结果电解质、葡萄糖、乳酸、pH的准确度较好(变异系数<2%),血气、尿素、肌酐、红细胞压积的准确度较好(变异系数<5.2%)。所有分析物的线性浓度跨越分析测量范围。方法比较研究表明,i-STAT Alinity分析仪与中心实验室分析仪之间的一致性良好,临床可接受。结论i-STAT Alinity分析仪具有良好的分析性能,符合我们的安全和监管要求,适合在我们医院作为护理点检测设备使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evaluation of the i-STAT Alinity Point-of-Care Analyzer
Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate the analytical performance of CG4+ and CHEM8+ cartridges on the i-STAT Alinity analyzer prior to use in patient testing. We also evaluated the ease of use, design, and safety features to determine its suitability for use by the clinicians in our hospital. Methods The Abbott i-STAT System Performance Verification Protocol was observed for the imprecision study and was performed over the course of 2 days using 2 levels of control material (Abbott i-STAT TriControl Level 1 and Level 3). The CLSI-EP6-A guideline was used to verify the assay reportable range performance using 5 levels of linearity material (Abbott i-Stat TriControl Calibration Verification Set). The method comparison study was performed using up to 60 leftover anonymized heparinized whole-blood samples and serum samples against existing laboratory instruments (Siemens Rapidpoint 500, Abbott Architect C16000, and Sysmex XN9000). Results Precision was good (coefficient of variation <2%) for electrolytes, glucose, lactate, and pH, and satisfactory (coefficient of variation <5.2%) for blood gases, urea, creatinine, and hematocrit. Linearity concentrations spanning the analytical measuring ranges were demonstrated for all analytes. Method comparison studies revealed that agreement between the i-STAT Alinity analyzer and the central laboratory analyzers was good and clinically acceptable. Conclusions The i-STAT Alinity analyzer has good analytical performance, and we established the analyzer meets our safety and regulatory requirements and therefore suitable for use in our hospital as a point-of-care testing device.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Comparison of International Normalized Ratio Results by Point-of-Care Device and Clinical Laboratory Analyzers in a Vascular Surgery Department Point-of-Care Testing in Hypercoagulable Conditions Managed With Warfarin Critical Care Nurses' Views and Experiences of Preanalytical Factors Influencing Point-of-Care Testing Rapid Assessment of Coagulation at the Point of Care With the Hemochron Signature Elite System Invited Product Profile: Detecting Antibodies for Lyme Disease at the Point of Care
×
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