ABSTRACT
By Teresita Lacara, RN, BSN, Caroline Domagtoy, RN,
BSN, Donna Lickliter, RN,
Kathy Quattrocchi, RN, BSN, Lydia Snipes, RN, Joánne
Kuszaj, RN, MSN, CCRN,
and MaryClare Prasnikar, RN, MSN, CCRN
Background Blood for point-of-care analysis
of glucose levels is often obtained from different sources (fingerstick,
arterial or central venous catheter).
Objectives To examine agreement between
point-of-care and laboratory glucose values and to determine effects of
hematocrit, serum carbon dioxide, and mean arterial pressure on the accuracy of
point-of-care values.
Methods Point-of-care values were
compared with laboratory values. In 49 critically ill patients, blood was
obtained first from a catheter for laboratory testing and then from the
catheter and via fingerstick for point-of-care testing. Bias, precision, and
rootmean- square differences were calculated to quantify differences in values
between the 2 methods. A t test was used to determine differences in values
between each point-of-care blood source and the laboratory value. Multiple
regression analysis was used to determine if serum level of carbon dioxide,
hematocrit, and/or
mean arterial pressure
significantly contributed to the difference in bias and precision for the
point-of-care blood sources.
Results Mean laboratory glucose level was
135 (SEM 5.3, range 58-265) mg/dL. In point-of-care testing, bias ± precision and
root-mean-square differences were 2.1 ± 12.3 and 12.35, respectively, for
fingerstick blood and 0.6 ± 10.6 and 10.46 for catheter blood. Values for
point-of-care and laboratory tests did not differ significantly. For catheter
samples, hematocrit and serum carbon dioxide contributed significantly to
difference scores between point-of-care and laboratory values (P < .001).
Conclusions Glucose values for point-of-care
samples did not differ significantly from laboratory values. For catheter
samples, hematocrit and serum carbon dioxide levels accounted for the
difference between point-of-care and laboratory glucose
values. (American Journal of Critical Care. 2007;16:336-347)
Full Text: CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment