Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter September 21, 2011

Preliminary performance evaluation of blood gas analyzers

  • Pedro Couck , Timothy Ghys , Evelyne Van Gastel , Mia Van Coillie , Frans Gorus and Erik Gerlo

Abstract

Background: We evaluated the imprecision and bias of three instruments for the determination of blood gases, pH and ionized calcium (Ca2+) in human arterial blood samples, in comparison with the performance of an established methodology.

Methods: The ABL 735, Omni S and Rapidpoint 405 blood gas analyzers were evaluated and compared to the ABL 620 analyzer. Imprecision was determined according to the NCCLS EP10-A2 evaluation protocol. The NCCLS EP9-A2 evaluation protocol was used to determine bias relative to the ABL 620 system. Experimental data were compared against preset quality specifications.

Results: The three new instruments showed excellent imprecision for the measurement of pH, but only the ABL 620 met the preset imprecision goals for all analytes tested. All new instruments showed good correlation with the comparative instrument. The slope of the regression equation was significantly different from 1.0 in six out of the 12 comparisons, indicating systematic differences between the instruments. Nevertheless, the predicted bias values relative to the comparative instrument did not exceed the preset quality specifications for two out of the three new instruments.

Conclusions: Preliminary evaluation using the NCCLS evaluation protocols EP10-A2 and EP9-A2, may provide valuable information on performance characteristics of blood gas analyzers.

Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:1030–4.


Corresponding author: Pedro Couck, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Academic Hospital of the Free University Brussels, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussels, Belgium Fax: +32-2-4775047,

References

1. AARC. Clinical practice guideline blood gas analysis and hemoximetry: 2001 revision & update. Respir Care 2001;46:498–505.Search in Google Scholar

2. NCCLS. Blood gas pre-analytical considerations: specimen collection, calibration and controls; NCCLS Document C27-A, ISBN 1-56238-190-3. Wayne, PA: NCCLS, 1993.Search in Google Scholar

3. US Department of Health and Social Services. Medicare, Medicaid, and CLIA programs: regulations implementing the clinical laboratory improvement amendments of 1988 (CLIA). Final rule. Fed Regist1992;57:7002–186.Search in Google Scholar

4. Ricos C, Alverez V, Caba F, Garcia-Lario JV, Hernandez A, Jiminez CV, et al. Current databases on biologic variation: pros, cons, and progress. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1999; 59:491–500.10.1080/00365519950185229Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Harding PJ, Fraser CG. Biological variation of blood acid-base status: consequences for analytical goal-setting and interpretation of results. Clin Chem 1987; 33:1416–8.10.1093/clinchem/33.8.1416Search in Google Scholar

6. Klee GG. Quality management of blood gas assays, June 2001. http://www.bloodgas.org. Accessed June 2005.Search in Google Scholar

7. Barrett AE, Cameron SJ, Fraser CG, Penberthy LA, Shand KL. A clinical view of analytical goals in clinical biochemistry. J Clin Pathol 1979; 32:893–6.10.1136/jcp.32.9.893Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

8. Valero-Politi J, Ginard-Salva M, Gonzalez-Alba JM. Annual rhythmic and non-rhythmic biological variation of magnesium and ionized calcium concentrations. Clin Chem Lab Med 2001; 39:45–9.10.1515/CCLM.2001.011Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. NCCLS. Procedures for the collection of arterial blood specimens; NCCLS Document H11-A3, ISBN 1-56238-374-4. Wayne, PA: NCCLS, 1999.Search in Google Scholar

10. NCCLS. Preliminary performance acceptability check; NCCLS Document EP-10-A2, ISBN 1-56238-482-1. Wayne, PA: NCCLS, 2002.Search in Google Scholar

11. Dixon WJ. Processing data for outliers. Biometrics 1983; 9:74–89.10.2307/3001634Search in Google Scholar

12. NCCLS. Method comparison and bias estimation using patient samples; NCCLS Document EP-9A2, ISBN 1-56238-472-4. Wayne, PA: NCCLS, 2002.Search in Google Scholar

13. Kofstad J. A comparison of four different blood gas analysers. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1981; 41:409–14.10.3109/00365518109092064Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Rubin P, Bradbury S, Prowse K. Comparative study of automatic blood-gas analysers and their use in analysing arterial and capillary samples. Br Med J 1979; 1:156–8.10.1136/bmj.1.6157.156Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

15. Beneteau-Burnat B, Bocque MC, Lorin A, Martin C, Vaubourdolle M. Evaluation of the blood gas analyzer Gem® PREMIER™ 3000. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42:96–101.10.1515/CCLM.2004.018Search in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Lindemans J, Hoefkens P, van Kessel AL, Bonnay M, Kulpmann WR, van Suijlen JD. Portable blood gas and electrolyte analyzer evaluated in a multiinstitutional study. Clin Chem 1999; 45:111–7.Search in Google Scholar

17. Wong RJ, Mahoney JJ, Harvey JA, Van Kessel AL. StatPal II pH and blood gas analysis system evaluated. Clin Chem 1994; 40:124–9.10.1093/clinchem/40.1.124Search in Google Scholar

18. Jacobs E, Nowakowski M, Colman N. Performance of Gem Premier blood gas/electrolyte analyzer evaluated. Clin Chem 1993; 39:1890–3.10.1093/clinchem/39.9.1890Search in Google Scholar

19. Magny E, Renard MF, Launay JM. Analytical evaluation of Rapidpoint 400 blood gas analyser. Ann Biol Clin 2001; 59:622–8.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2006-3-3
Accepted: 2006-5-22
Published Online: 2011-9-21
Published in Print: 2006-8-1

©2006 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York

Downloaded on 28.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/CCLM.2006.185/html
Scroll to top button