{"title":"Comparison of blood gas results obtained on Abbott i-Stat® and on Radiometer ABL 800 Flex® analyzers Impact for the clinical decision","authors":"Romain Jouffroy, Maude Laney, Teddy Leguillier, Valérie Nivet-Antoine, Jean-Louis Beaudeux","doi":"10.1684/abc.2022.1765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Point of care testing (POCT) tests are needed to assess severity and to help for triage in hospital and in prehospital settings. Before their use, the analytical performances of POCTs have to be compared with central laboratory reference methods. In this study, we describe the comparability of results obtained by either the Abbott i-STAT® System POCT handheld device or the blood gases analyzer of the central laboratory of our hospital.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sample blood from 37 septic patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) were assayed by Abbott i-STAT® System POCT and Radiometer ABL800 Flex® lab analyzer. Studied parameters were as follows: pH, pO2, pCO2, base excess (BE), HCO3- and lactate. Comparability was evaluated using Bland-Altman method. The clinical value for possible mismatch issued of values differences was also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Quite acceptable correlations in results of POCT and laboratory analyzer were observed with R² most of time above 0.85. Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of 1.26% for Abbott i-STAT® System POCT vs laboratory.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Abbott i-STAT® System POCT handheld device is comparable to Radiometer ABL800 Flex® lab analyzer and concordant with laboratory analysis. Abbott i-STAT® System POCT handled device could be used in the prehospital settings in order to evaluate the severity of sepsis.</p>","PeriodicalId":7892,"journal":{"name":"Annales de biologie clinique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annales de biologie clinique","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1684/abc.2022.1765","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Point of care testing (POCT) tests are needed to assess severity and to help for triage in hospital and in prehospital settings. Before their use, the analytical performances of POCTs have to be compared with central laboratory reference methods. In this study, we describe the comparability of results obtained by either the Abbott i-STAT® System POCT handheld device or the blood gases analyzer of the central laboratory of our hospital.
Methods: Sample blood from 37 septic patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) were assayed by Abbott i-STAT® System POCT and Radiometer ABL800 Flex® lab analyzer. Studied parameters were as follows: pH, pO2, pCO2, base excess (BE), HCO3- and lactate. Comparability was evaluated using Bland-Altman method. The clinical value for possible mismatch issued of values differences was also assessed.
Results: Quite acceptable correlations in results of POCT and laboratory analyzer were observed with R² most of time above 0.85. Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of 1.26% for Abbott i-STAT® System POCT vs laboratory.
Conclusion: Abbott i-STAT® System POCT handheld device is comparable to Radiometer ABL800 Flex® lab analyzer and concordant with laboratory analysis. Abbott i-STAT® System POCT handled device could be used in the prehospital settings in order to evaluate the severity of sepsis.
期刊介绍:
Multidisciplinary information with direct relevance to everyday practice
Annales de Biologie Clinique, the official journal of the French Society of Clinical Biology (SFBC), supports biologists in areas including continuing education, laboratory accreditation and technique validation.
With original articles, abstracts and accounts of everyday practice, the journal provides details of advances in knowledge, techniques and equipment, as well as a forum for discussion open to the entire community.