» Articles » PMID: 12717128

Comparison of Point-of-care Versus Central Laboratory Measurement of Electrolyte Concentrations on Calculations of the Anion Gap and the Strong Ion Difference

Overview
Journal Anesthesiology
Specialty Anesthesiology
Date 2003 Apr 30
PMID 12717128
Citations 39
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Clinicians calculate the anion gap (AG) and the strong ion difference (SID) to make acid-base diagnoses. The technology used is assumed to have limited impact. The authors hypothesized that different measurement technologies markedly affect AG and SID values.

Methods: SID and AG were calculated using values from the point-of-care blood gas and electrolyte analyzer and the central hospital laboratory automated blood biochemistry analyzer. Simultaneously measured plasma sodium, potassium, and chloride concentrations were also compared.

Results: Mean values for central laboratory and point-of-care plasma sodium concentration were significantly different (140.4 +/- 5.6 vs. 138.3 +/- 5.9 mm; P < 0.0001), as were those for plasma chloride concentration (102.4 +/- 6.5 vs. 103.4 +/- 6.0 mm; P < 0.0001) but not potassium. Mean AG values calculated with the two different measurement techniques differed significantly (17.6 +/- 6.2 mEq/l for central laboratory vs. 14.5 +/- 6.0 mEq/l for point-of-care blood gas analyzer; P < 0.0001). Using the Stewart-Figge methodology, SID values also differed significantly (43.7 +/- 4.8 vs. 40.7 +/- 5.6 mEq/l; P < 0.0001), with mean difference of 3.1 mEq/l (95% limits of agreement, -3.4, 9.5 mEq/l). For 83 patients (27.6%), differences in AG values were as high as 5 mEq/l or more, and for 46% of patients whose AG value was outside the reference range with one technology, a value within normal limits was recorded with the other.

Conclusions: Results with two different measurement technologies differed significantly for plasma sodium and chloride concentrations. These differences significantly affected the calculated AG and SID values and might lead clinicians to different assessments of acid-base and electrolyte status.

Citing Articles

ABG Analyzer for Electrolyte Measurement in ICU Patients: To Do or Not to Do.

Tyagi N Indian J Crit Care Med. 2024; 28(5):416-418.

PMID: 38738191 PMC: 11080086. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24722.


POCT errors can lead to false potassium results.

Buno A, Oliver P Adv Lab Med. 2023; 3(2):142-152.

PMID: 37361872 PMC: 10197277. DOI: 10.1515/almed-2021-0079.


Measuring serum sodium levels using blood gas analyzer and auto analyzer in heart and lung disease patients: A cross-sectional study.

Narimani Zamanabadi M, Zamanabadi T, Alizadeh R Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022; 78:103713.

PMID: 35600187 PMC: 9117252. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103713.


Performance evaluation of the i-Smart 300E cartridge for point-of-care electrolyte measurement in serum and plasma.

Lee B, Park H J Clin Lab Anal. 2022; 36(4):e24295.

PMID: 35156738 PMC: 8993652. DOI: 10.1002/jcla.24295.


Blood-gas vs. Central-Laboratory analyzers: interchangeability and reference intervals for sodium, potassium, glucose, lactate and hemoglobin.

Marija K, Bernhard K, Beatrice L Heliyon. 2021; 7(11):e08302.

PMID: 34816029 PMC: 8591361. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08302.