{"title":"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything: making intraoperative transfusion decisions using point-of-care testing","authors":"Lachlan F. Miles , Erica M. Wood","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.12.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Accurate and timely diagnostic information is a vital adjunct to clinical assessment to inform therapeutic decision-making, including decisions to transfuse, or not transfuse, blood components. A prospective cohort study of diagnostic point-of-care (POC) haemoglobin measurements on arterial or central venous samples from adults undergoing major noncardiac surgery compared three widely used devices, HemoCue®, i-STAT™, and the Rad-67™ pulse CO-Oxymeter® finger sensor device, against standard laboratory haemoglobin measurements, but importantly not against a blood gas analyser. The study focused on haemoglobin results below 100 g L<sup>−1</sup> to establish the utility of these devices to guide red cell transfusion decisions. None of the limits of agreement between POC device and laboratory results were within the allowable difference of plus or minus 4 g L<sup>−1</sup>, and no device consistently over- or underestimated laboratory haemoglobin results in the same direction. However, results from the HemoCue® had the lowest likelihood to lead to inappropriate red cell transfusion. Clinicians should be aware of the patient, sample, and device factors that can influence the accuracy of POC haemoglobin testing results.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":"134 2","pages":"Pages 274-276"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091224007141","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Accurate and timely diagnostic information is a vital adjunct to clinical assessment to inform therapeutic decision-making, including decisions to transfuse, or not transfuse, blood components. A prospective cohort study of diagnostic point-of-care (POC) haemoglobin measurements on arterial or central venous samples from adults undergoing major noncardiac surgery compared three widely used devices, HemoCue®, i-STAT™, and the Rad-67™ pulse CO-Oxymeter® finger sensor device, against standard laboratory haemoglobin measurements, but importantly not against a blood gas analyser. The study focused on haemoglobin results below 100 g L−1 to establish the utility of these devices to guide red cell transfusion decisions. None of the limits of agreement between POC device and laboratory results were within the allowable difference of plus or minus 4 g L−1, and no device consistently over- or underestimated laboratory haemoglobin results in the same direction. However, results from the HemoCue® had the lowest likelihood to lead to inappropriate red cell transfusion. Clinicians should be aware of the patient, sample, and device factors that can influence the accuracy of POC haemoglobin testing results.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience.
The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence.
Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.