Skip to main content

Comparison of three different multi-analyte point-of-care devices during clinical routine on a medical ICU

Introduction

Multi-analyte point-of-care (POC) devices are important to guide clinical decisions in critical care. However, the use of different devices in one hospital might cause problems. We therefore evaluated three commonly used POC devices and analysed accuracy, reliability and bias.

Methods

Seventy-four arterial blood samples were analysed with three POC devices (Cobas, Roche (CO); ABL800 Flex, Radiometer (ABL); Gem Premiere, Instrumentation Laboratory (IL)). For selected parameters, samples were also analysed in the central laboratory. pCO2, pO2, SO2, bicarbonate and standard bicarbonate (HCO3 and HCO3std), sodium, potassium, calcium, pH, lactate, base excess (BE(B) and BEecf), glucose, hemoglobin and hematocrit were compared.

Results

For most parameters only minor, although statistically significant, changes were observed between the POC devices. For pO2, BE(B), hemoglobin and hematocrit, clinically significant differences were found. When for example looking at a pO2 of 60 mmHg, in six out of 74 samples, IL and/or CO showed a pO2 below 60 mmHg and ABL showed a pO2 of above 60 mmHg. For hematocrit and hemoglobin, differences between the devices would result in different decisions regarding the use of packed red cells in 11 to 19% of the samples. For BE(B) in a total of 15% of measurements, the results obtained from the different devices would not agree whether a BE(B) is normal or not.

Conclusions

Although POC devices are of high standard and overall comparability between devices is high, there might be a clinically relevant bias between devices, as found in our study for pO2, BE(B), hemoglobin and hematocrit. This can be of importance when interpreting results of the same patient obtained from different POC devices, as could happen when a patient is transferred within a hospital where different devices are used.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V Stadlbauer.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stadlbauer, V., Wallner, S., Stojakovic, T. et al. Comparison of three different multi-analyte point-of-care devices during clinical routine on a medical ICU. Crit Care 15, P132 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc9552

Download citation

Keywords

  • Glucose
  • Lactate
  • Bicarbonate
  • HCO3
  • Emergency Medicine