Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)
Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario
Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter / Tate, Jillian R.
IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 3.017
Rank 5 out of 30 in category Medical Laboratory Technology in the 2014 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.873
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.982
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 2.238
Comparability of point-of-care whole-blood electrolyte and substrate testing using a Stat Profile Critical Care Xpress analyzer and standard laboratory methods
Citation Information: Clinical Chemical Laboratory Medicine. Volume 44, Issue 7, Pages 898–903, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2006.148, July 2006
- December 6, 2005
- March 22, 2006
Background: Rapid technological progress in point-of-care testing allows the measurement of multiple analytes in whole-blood samples. The present study evaluated biosensor-based methods for the measurement of electrolytes and substrates in whole blood using a Stat Profile Critical Care Xpress (Nova Biomedical, Waltham, MA, USA) multiprofile analyzer and their comparability with standard laboratory methods. Because of the increased utilization of arterial blood samples in hospitalized patients and limited information on differences between arterial and venous blood for most routine laboratory tests, analytical differences caused by different sample types were evaluated.
Methods: Whole-blood arterial samples and venous serum samples were obtained from 70 random patients with a variety of diagnoses admitted to the intensive care unit. The Stat Profile Critical Care Xpress analyzer was used to obtain whole-blood electrolyte and substrate profiles. For comparison studies, plasma or serum samples were analyzed according to standard laboratory methods using an Olympus AU 600 analyzer (Olympus Mishima, Shizuoka, Japan).
Results: Imprecision, expressed as the coefficient of variation (CV%), was less than 5.7% for all analytes at both high and low concentrations, except for creatinine, with a CV of 13.8% for low and 9.5% for high concentrations. The inaccuracy of electrolyte and substrate measurements in whole blood using a Stat Profile Critical Care Xpress analyzer met the analytical quality specification required for near patient testing, with observed bias within the range −4.5% to 5.3%. Statistically significant correlation (p<0.05) was obtained between standard laboratory methods performed on arterial plasma or venous serum samples on an Olympus AU 600 analyzer and direct whole-blood measurements on the Stat Profile Critical Care Xpress point-of-care analyzer for all parameters tested, although slope and intercept values showed analytical differences for electrolyte measurement.
Conclusions: The Stat Profile Critical Care Xpress multiprofile point-of-care analyzer provides rapid and accurate direct whole-blood measurement with acceptable performance compared to standard laboratory methods. The results obtained for electrolytes and substrates in whole blood were comparable to those for standard laboratory methods using arterial plasma or venous serum samples.
Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:898–903.
Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.