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)2020; 30(3); 279-285; doi: 10.1111/vec.12950

Evaluation of the Element point-of-care blood gas analyzer for use in horses.

Abstract: To compare the Element point-of-care (POC) portable blood gas analyzer with a laboratory-based bench-top reference analyzer using whole blood samples obtained from horses presenting to a referral center with various disorders in order to determine agreement between these analyzers. Methods: Prospective clinical study. Methods: The study was conducted at a university teaching hospital at moderate altitude. Methods: One hundred paired samples from 80 horses >1 year of age were collected after obtaining informed client consent. Fifty paired samples were from patients admitted for elective procedures and considered to be healthy, and 50 paired samples were emergency admissions and considered to be critically ill. Results: Paired whole blood samples were evaluated on both the Element POC and Radiometer ABL 800 FLEX analyzers simultaneously, and results were compared. Pearson correlation coefficients between analyzers were calculated. To assess agreement, scatter and Bland-Altman plots were evaluated, and mean difference and 95% limits of agreement were calculated for each analyte. Correlation was either good (0.8-0.92) or excellent (>0.93) for the majority of analytes. All analytes apart from hemoglobin had acceptable agreement, with ≥80% of individual results within agreement targets. Precision targets were acceptable for most analytes, with partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO ) and calcium (Ca ) exceeding precision targets. Conclusions: The portable Element POC system had acceptable agreement with the ABL 800 FLEX bench-top analyzer currently in use at the study center when evaluating the majority of analytes from equine whole blood samples.
© Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society 2020.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2020-03-18 PubMed ID: 32187439DOI: 10.1111/vec.12950Google 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

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.

The study investigates the agreement between a portable point-of-care blood gas analyser, named Element, and a laboratory-based bench-top reference analyser using blood samples from horses. The results showed that the Element analyser had good to excellent agreement for most of the tested analytes, except for hemoglobin.

Methods

  • The research was conducted at a university teaching hospital at moderate altitude.
  • The researchers collected one hundred paired blood samples from eighty horses older than one year, after obtaining consent from the owners.
  • Fifty of these paired samples were taken from horses that were admitted for elective procedures and were considered healthy, while the other fifty samples were taken from emergency admissions, and the horses were considered critically ill.
  • The paired blood samples were then assessed on both the Element point-of-care (POC) analyzer and a laboratory-based benchtop analyzer, known as Radiometer ABL 800 FLEX, at the same time, and the results from both instruments were compared.
  • They also calculated Pearson correlation coefficients between the two analyzers to establish a correlation.

Results

  • The researchers used different methods, including scatter and Bland-Altman plots, to evaluate the agreement between the two instruments. They also calculated the mean difference and the 95% limits of agreement for each analyte.
  • Most of the analytes showed good to excellent correlation (ranging from 0.8 to over 0.93). Hemoglobin was the only analyte that did not achieve acceptable agreement.
  • Around 80% or more of the individual results were within agreement targets for all other analytes.
  • The precision targets were met for most analytes. However, the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO) and calcium (Ca) exceeded these targets.

Conclusion

  • The study concluded that the Element POC system showed acceptable agreement with the Radiometer ABL 800 FLEX bench-top analyzer for most analytes from equine blood samples.
  • These findings suggest that the Element POC system can be used as a reliable alternative to the bench-top analyzer for most applications.

Cite This Article

APA
Krueger CR, Hackett ES, Hess AM, Mama KR. (2020). Evaluation of the Element point-of-care blood gas analyzer for use in horses. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio), 30(3), 279-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.12950

Publication

Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)
ISSN: 1476-4431
NlmUniqueID: 101152804
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 30
Issue: 3
Pages: 279-285

Researcher Affiliations

Krueger, Clarisa R
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Hackett, Eileen S
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Hess, Ann M
  • Department of Statistics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Mama, Khursheed R
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Blood Gas Analysis / instrumentation
  • Blood Gas Analysis / methods
  • Blood Gas Analysis / veterinary
  • Calcium
  • Carbon Dioxide / blood
  • Hemoglobins
  • Horses / blood
  • Partial Pressure
  • Point-of-Care Systems
  • Prospective Studies

References

This article includes 19 references
  1. Flatland B, Freeman KP, Vap LM, Harr KE. ASVCP guidelines: quality assurance for point-of-care testing in veterinary medicine.. Vet Clin Pathol 2013;42(4):405-423.
  2. HESKA. Element POC. Available at: http://www.heska.com/products/lab-systems/element-poc-analyzer.aspx?s=7DB0BF88A471099D930D748E4519E8D9CAF1772A. Accessed March 1, 2018.
  3. Bardell D, West E, Mark Senior J. Evaluation of a new handheld point-of-care blood gas analyser using 100 equine blood samples.. Vet Anaesth Analg 2017;44:77-85.
  4. Elmeshreghi TN, Grubb TL, Greene SA, Ragle CA, Wardrop JA. Comparison of enterprise point-of-care and Nova Biomedical Critical Care Xpress analyzers for determination of arterial pH, blood gas, and electrolyte values in canine and equine blood.. Vet Clin Pathol 2018;00:1-10.
    doi: 10.1111/vcp.12635google scholar: lookup
  5. Hackett ES, Traub-Dargatz JL, Knowles JE Jr, Tarr SF, Dargatz DA. Arterial blood gas parameters of normal foals born at 1500 metres elevation.. Equine Vet J 2010;42(1):59-62.
  6. Maillard D, Ferracci F, Marotte H, Canot S, Tran Minh T, Finetti P. Testing of the AVL OPTI 1 portable blood gas analyzer during inflight conditions.. Aviat Space Environ Med 1999;70(4):346-350.
  7. Medicare. Medicaid and CLIA programs; regulations implementing the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA)-HCFA. Final rule with comment period.. Fed Regist 1992;57(40):7002-7186.
  8. Harr KE, Flatland B, Nabity M, Freeman KP. ASVCP guidelines: allowable total error guidelines for biochemistry.. Vet Clin Pathol 2013;42(4):424-436.
  9. Nanda SK, Ray L, Dinakaran A. Validation of method performance of pH, PCO2, PO2, Na+, K+ of Cobas b121 ABG analyser.. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(6):CC05-CC07.
  10. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.. Lancet 1986;1(8476):307-310.
  11. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies.. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8(2):135-160.
  12. Hyslop NP, White WH. Estimating precision using duplicate measurements.. J Air Waste Manage 2009;59(9):1032-1039.
  13. West E, Bardell D, Senior JM. Comparison of the EPOC and i-STAT analysers for canine blood gas and electrolyte analysis.. J Small Anim Pract 2014;55(3):139-144.
  14. Jensen AL, Kjelgaard-Hansen M. Method comparison in the clinical laboratory.. Vet Clin Pathol 2006;35(3):276-286.
  15. Silverman SC, Birks EK. Evaluation of the i-STAT hand-held chemical analyser during treadmill and endurance exercise.. Equine Vet J Suppl 2002;(34):551-554.
  16. Kluger EK, Dhand NK, Malik R, Ilkin WJ, Snow DH, Govendir M. Evaluation of two portable meters for determination of blood triglyceride concentration in dogs.. Am J Vet Res 2010;71(2):203-210.
  17. Hackett ES, McCue PM. Evaluation of a veterinary glucometer for use in horses.. J Vet Intern Med 2010;24(3):617-621.
  18. Abu-Arafeh A, Jordan H, Drummond G. Reporting of method comparison studies: a review of advice, an assessment of current practice, and specific suggestions for future reports.. Br J Anaesth 2016;117(5):569-575.
  19. Wandrup JH. Multiprofile blood gas method comparison studies. Available at: https://acutecaretesting.org/en/articles/multiprofile-blood-gas-method-comparison-studies. Accessed August 29, 2018.

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Stefanik E, Drewnowska O, Lisowska B, Turek B. Causes, Effects and Methods of Monitoring Gas Exchange Disturbances during Equine General Anaesthesia. Animals (Basel) 2021 Jul 9;11(7).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11072049pubmed: 34359177google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,780 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.