FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)2024; 34(6); 570-578; doi: 10.1111/vec.13429

Evaluation of point-of-care capillary and venous blood glucose concentrations in hospitalized neonatal foals.

Abstract: To compare glucose measurements from capillary and venous blood samples using a point-of-care (POC) glucometer with a standard laboratory (colorimetric, glucose oxidase) assay (LABGLU) in a population of hospitalized, neonatal foals. Methods: Multicenter, prospective, experimental study, conducted between March 2019 and June 2020. Methods: Four university teaching hospitals and 1 private referral hospital. Methods: Fifty-four hospitalized neonatal (≤30 days of age) foals. Methods: Simultaneous capillary (muzzle, POCMUZ) and venous (jugular, POCJUG) blood samples were obtained to determine POC glucose concentrations. Venous samples were also analyzed by LABGLU. Each foal was sampled at the time of enrollment or admission to the hospital and at 1 subsequent point during hospitalization. Indirect mean arterial pressure and hematocrit were concurrently recorded. Results: Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean bias (95% limits of agreement) of -28.0 (-88.6 to 32.6) mg/dL for comparison of POCJUG with LABGLU, -8.2 (-94.3 to 78.0) mg/dL for POCMUZ and LABGLU, and 18.8 (-44.4 to 82.0) mg/dL for POCMUZ and POCJUG. A total of 63.5% of the POCJUG and 45.2% of the POCMUZ samples exceeded the reference value by ±15 mg/dL (for LABGLU samples <75 mg/dL) or ±15% (for LABGLU samples ≥75mg/dL). Concordance correlation coefficient (95% confidence interval [CI]) indicated a fair agreement between POCJUG and LABGLU (0.75, 95% CI: 0.66-0.82) and between POCMUZ and LABGLU (0.71, 95% CI: 0.58-0.80). Fifty percent (14/28) of hypoglycemic foals on the reference method were incorrectly classified as euglycemic by POCJUG, and 5 of 28 were incorrectly classified by POCMUZ. Conclusions: In the sampled population, the chosen POC glucometer lacked agreement with the standard laboratory measurement. Limits of agreement were wide for both POCJUG and POCMUZ. Inaccuracies in POC results could impact decision-making in the clinical management of glycemic control in hospitalized neonatal foals and, importantly, increase the risk of hypoglycemic events being underdiagnosed in critical patients.
© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-11-18 PubMed ID: 39558467PubMed Central: PMC11650952DOI: 10.1111/vec.13429Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Multicenter Study

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study assessed the accuracy of point-of-care (POC) glucometer readings from capillary and venous blood in hospitalized neonatal foals by comparing them to standard laboratory glucose measurements.

Background and Purpose

  • Neonatal foals often require glucose monitoring to manage hypoglycemia or other metabolic conditions during hospitalization.
  • Point-of-care glucometers are frequently used in clinical settings for rapid glucose measurement.
  • However, the reliability of POC glucometers compared to laboratory-based glucose assays, especially in neonatal foals, had not been well established.
  • The study aimed to evaluate how well POC glucose results from capillary (muzzle) and venous (jugular) blood matched standard laboratory glucose values.

Study Design and Setting

  • A prospective, multicenter experimental study conducted from March 2019 to June 2020.
  • Included five institutions: four university teaching hospitals and one private referral hospital.
  • Fifty-four hospitalized neonatal foals (age ≤ 30 days) were enrolled.
  • Each foal had simultaneous sampling of capillary blood from the muzzle and venous blood from the jugular vein for POC glucometer readings.
  • Venous samples were also sent for standard laboratory glucose measurement using a colorimetric, glucose oxidase method (referred to as LABGLU).
  • Samples were collected at admission/enrollment and once more during hospitalization.
  • Mean arterial pressure and hematocrit were recorded concurrently as physiological parameters that might influence glucose readings.

Key Measurements and Analysis

  • Glucose levels measured by:
    • POC glucometer from muzzle capillary blood (POCMUZ).
    • POC glucometer from jugular venous blood (POCJUG).
    • Standard laboratory assay from jugular venous blood (LABGLU).
  • Statistical method used to compare measurements was Bland-Altman analysis for bias and limits of agreement between methods.
  • Concordance correlation coefficients (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated to assess agreement between the POC methods and LABGLU.
  • Classification accuracy for hypoglycemia was assessed by comparing how many hypoglycemic foals (per LABGLU) were misclassified as normal (euglycemic) by the POC methods.

Results

  • Bland-Altman bias (mean difference) between POCJUG and LABGLU was -28.0 mg/dL, indicating POCJUG tended to underestimate glucose compared to LABGLU on average.
  • POCMUZ had a smaller mean bias of -8.2 mg/dL versus LABGLU but still showed wide limits of agreement.
  • The bias between POCMUZ and POCJUG was 18.8 mg/dL, showing they also differed between each other.
  • A substantial proportion of samples showed significant discrepancies:
    • 63.5% of POCJUG readings deviated from LABGLU by more than ±15 mg/dL (for low glucose) or ±15% (for higher glucose).
    • 45.2% of POCMUZ readings exceeded these thresholds.
  • Concordance correlation coefficients indicated fair but not excellent agreement:
    • POCJUG vs LABGLU: 0.75 (moderate agreement)
    • POCMUZ vs LABGLU: 0.71 (slightly lower agreement)
  • Hypoglycemia misclassification:
    • 50% (14 out of 28) hypoglycemic foals by LABGLU were classified as normal by POCJUG.
    • 18% (5 out of 28) hypoglycemics were misclassified by POCMUZ.

Conclusions and Clinical Implications

  • The POC glucometer evaluated in this study lacked sufficient agreement with the standard laboratory glucose assay in neonatal foals.
  • Wide limits of agreement mean that individual POC measurements could deviate substantially from actual blood glucose levels.
  • Inaccurate POC glucose readings may compromise clinical decision-making, particularly in managing glycemic control for critical neonatal foals.
  • Underdiagnosis of hypoglycemia due to false normal POC readings is a significant risk, which can negatively impact patient outcomes.
  • Clinicians should exercise caution in relying solely on POC glucometer results and consider confirmatory laboratory testing when precise glucose measurements are essential.

Cite This Article

APA
Dias Moreira AS, Weng HY, Hostnik LD, Beasley EM, Peek SF, Munsterman AS. (2024). Evaluation of point-of-care capillary and venous blood glucose concentrations in hospitalized neonatal foals. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio), 34(6), 570-578. https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.13429

Publication

Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)
ISSN: 1476-4431
NlmUniqueID: 101152804
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 34
Issue: 6
Pages: 570-578

Researcher Affiliations

Dias Moreira, Ana Sofia
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Weng, Hsin-Yi
  • Department of Comparative Pathobiology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
Hostnik, Laura D
  • Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Beasley, Erin M
  • Department of Large Animal Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Peek, Simon F
  • Department of Medical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Munsterman, Amelia S
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses / blood
  • Animals, Newborn / blood
  • Blood Glucose / analysis
  • Point-of-Care Systems
  • Prospective Studies
  • Female
  • Male
  • Hospitalization
  • Capillaries

Grant Funding

  • School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Companion Animal Fund Research Grant, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Conflict of Interest Statement

Dr. Munsterman is an Assistant Editor of the Journal but only participated in the peer review process as an author. There are no conflicts of interest to disclose, financial or otherwise.

References

This article includes 38 references
  1. Hug SA, Riond B, Schwarzwald CC. Evaluation of a continuous glucose monitoring system compared with an in‐house standard laboratory assay and a handheld point‐of‐care glucometer in critically ill neonatal foals. J Vet Emerg Crit Care 2013;23:408‐415.
    pubmed: 23859299
  2. Hollis AR, Furr MO, Magdesian KG. Blood glucose concentrations in critically ill neonatal foals. J Vet Intern Med 2008;22:1223‐1227.
    pubmed: 18691362
  3. Furr M. Factors associated with the risk of positive blood culture in neonatal foals presented to a referral center (2000‐2014). J Vet Intern Med 2020;34(6):2738‐2750.
    pmc: PMC7694804pubmed: 33044020
  4. Hollis AR, Dallap Schaer BL, Boston RC, Wilkins PA. Comparison of the Accu‐Chek Aviva point‐of‐care glucometer with blood gas and laboratory methods of analysis of glucose measurement in equine emergency patients. J Vet Intern Med 2008;22:1189‐1195.
    pubmed: 18638018
  5. Wilkins PA. The equine neonatal intensive care laboratory: point‐of‐care testing. Clin Lab Med 2011;31:125‐137.
    pubmed: 21295726
  6. Hackett ES, McCue PM. Evaluation of a veterinary glucometer for use in horses. J Vet Intern Med 2010;24:617‐621.
    pubmed: 20337908
  7. D'Orazio P, Burnett RW, Fogh‐Andersen N. Approved IFCC recommendation on reporting results for blood glucose (abbreviated). Clin Chem 2005;51(9):1573‐1576.
    pubmed: 16120945
  8. MacKay EM. The distribution of glucose in human blood. J Biol Chem 1932;97(3):685‐689.
  9. Goodwin RF. The distribution of sugar between red cells and plasma: variations associated with age and species. J Physiol 1956;134(1):88‐101.
    pmc: PMC1359183pubmed: 13377312
  10. Hoedemaekers CWE, Gunnewiek JMTK, Prinsen MA, Willems JL, Van der Hoeven JG. Accuracy of bedside glucose measurement from three glucometers in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2008;36:3062‐3066.
    pubmed: 18824915
  11. Fahy BG, Sheehy AM, Coursin DB. Glucose control in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2009;37:1769‐1776.
    pubmed: 19325461
  12. Atkin SH, Dasmahapatra A, Jaker MA, Chorost MI, Reddy S. Fingerstick glucose determination in shock. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:1020‐1024.
    pubmed: 2029097
  13. Critchell CD, Savarese V, Callahan A, Aboud C, Jabbour S, Marik P. Accuracy of bedside capillary blood glucose measurement in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 2007;33:2079‐2084.
    pubmed: 17763842
  14. DuBois JA, Slingerland RJ, Fokkert M. Bedside glucose monitoring‐is it safe? A new, regulatory‐compliant risk assessment evaluation protocol in critically ill patient care settings. Crit Care Med 2017;45:567‐574.
    pmc: PMC5345889pubmed: 28169943
  15. Nout YS, Corley KT, Donaldson LL, Furr MO. Indirect oscillometric and direct blood pressure measurements in anesthetized and conscious neonatal foals. J Vet Emerg Crit Care 2002;12:75‐80.
  16. Axon JE, Palmer JE. Clinical pathology of the foal.. Vet Clin Equine 2008;24:357‐385.
    pubmed: 18652960
  17. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Blood glucose monitoring test systems for prescription point‐of‐care use: guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff. .
  18. Clarke WL, Cox D, Gonder‐Frederick LA, Carter W, Pohl SL. Evaluating clinical accuracy of systems for self‐monitoring of blood glucose.. Diabetes Care 1987;10(5):622‐628.
    pubmed: 3677983
  19. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical method for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.. Lancet North Am Ed 1986;i:307‐310.
    pubmed: 2868172
  20. Lin LI‐K. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility.. Biometrics 1989;45:255‐268.
    pubmed: 2720055
  21. Barsnick RJ, Hurcombe SD, Smith PA. Insulin, glucagon, and leptin in critically ill foals.. J Vet Intern Med 2011;25(1):123‐131.
    pubmed: 21092004
  22. Wong D, Malik C, Dembek K, Estell K, Marchitello M, Wilson K. Evaluation of a continuous glucose monitoring system in neonatal foals.. J Vet Intern Med 2021;35(4):1995‐2001.
    pmc: PMC8295665pubmed: 34096103
  23. Wolfenden G, James FE, Hung LHT, Bruce M, Thompson M. Comparative accuracy of two veterinary‐calibrated point‐of‐care glucometers for measurement of blood glucose concentration in dogs.. J Small Anim Pract 2022;63:512‐519.
    pubmed: 35347740
  24. Russell C, Palmer JE, Boston RC, Wilkins PA. Agreement between point‐of‐care glucometry, blood gas and laboratory‐based measurement of glucose in an equine neonatal intensive care unit.. J Vet Emerg Crit Care 2007;17:236‐242.
  25. Rendle DI, Armstrong SK, Heller J, Hughes KJ. Precision and accuracy of a point‐of‐care glucometer in horses and the effects of sample type.. Vet J 2019;252:105359.
    pubmed: 31554585
  26. Klonoff DC, Umpierrez GE, Rice MJ. A milestone in point of care capillary blood glucose monitoring of critically ill hospitalized patients.. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018;12(6):1095‐1100.
    pmc: PMC6232725pubmed: 30246543
  27. Guevara JL, Tobias KM, Stokes JE, Zhu X, Smith RA. Effect of sample collection and prandial state on blood glucose concentrations measured with a portable blood glucose meter in healthy dogs.. Am J Vet Res 2019;80:995‐1000.
    pubmed: 31644346
  28. Pfützner A, Klonoff DC, Pardo S, Parkes JL. Technical aspects of the Parkes error grid.. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013;7(5):1275‐1281.
    pmc: PMC3876371pubmed: 24124954
  29. Jendrike N, Baumstark A, Kamecke U, Haug C, Freckmann G. ISO 15197: 2013 evaluation of a blood glucose monitoring system's measurement accuracy.. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017;11(6):1275‐1276.
    pmc: PMC5951056pubmed: 28849677
  30. Zhang R, Isakow W, Kollef MH, Scott MG. Performance of a modern glucose meter in ICU and general hospital inpatients: 3 years of real‐world paired meter and central laboratory results.. Crit Care Med 2017;45(9):1509‐1514.
    pubmed: 28640025
  31. Mikesh LM, Bruns DE. Stabilization of glucose in blood specimens: mechanisms of delay in fluoride inhibition of glycolysis. Clin Chem 2008;54:930‐931.
    pubmed: 18443184
  32. Bruns DE. Are fluoride‐containing blood tubes still needed for glucose testing?. Clin Biochem 2013;46:289‐290.
    pubmed: 23415485
  33. Li G, Cabanero M, Wang Z. Comparison of glucose determinations on blood samples collected in three types of tubes. Ann Clin Lab Sci 2013;43:278‐284.
    pubmed: 23884222
  34. Phillips L, Hanson R, Bennett PH. Stability of plasma glucose during storage. Ann Clin Biochem 1995;32:337‐339.
    pubmed: 7632043
  35. Chan AYW, Swaminathan R, Cockram CS. Effectiveness of sodium fluoride as a preservative of glucose in blood. Clin Chem 1989;35:315‐317.
    pubmed: 2914384
  36. Shi RZ, Seeley ES, Bowen R. Rapid blood separation is superior to fluoride for preventing in vitro reductions in measured blood glucose concentration. J Clin Pathol 2009;62:752‐753.
    pubmed: 19638548
  37. Ferrante PL, Kronfeld DS. Effect of sample handling on measurement of plasma glucose and blood lactate concentrations in horses before and after exercise. Am J Vet Res 1994;55:1497‐1500.
    pubmed: 7879969
  38. . Clinical Laboratory Handbook for Patient Preparation and Specimen Handling. Fascicle VI: Chemistry/Clinical Microscopy College of American Pathologists; 1992.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,911 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.