2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/162491
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Method Comparison of Two Cardiac Point-of-Care Devices in the ED
Abstract:
Method Comparison of Two Cardiac Point-of-Care Devices in the ED
Conference Sponsor:Emergency Nurses Association
Conference Year:2008
Author:Valentine, Sharon, RN, MS, CCRC
P.I. Institution Name:Stony Brook University Medical Center
Title:Clinical Research Coordinator
Contact Address:Suny at Stony Brook, Dept. of Emergency Medicine - HSC L-4 Room 080, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-8350, USA
Contact Telephone:(631) 444-8030
Co-Authors:Jasmine Chohan, BA and Adam Singer, MD
[Research Poster] Purpose: This study compared two different marketed POC products used to measure cardiac enzymes. One device provided a rapid turnaround time for Troponin I only, and the other device provided rapid results for Myoglobin, CK-MB and Troponin I simultaneously. Multiple features to measure the potential benefits and disadvantages for each device were evaluated.

Design: This study was conducted using a prospective comparative descriptive design.

Setting: The study was conducted in the Emergency Department of an urban teaching hospital which is also a Certified Chest Pain Center.

Sample: The study was conducted using blood samples from 100 unique patients presenting to the Emergency Department with symptoms consistent with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Patients who could not or did not want to consent were excluded from the study. The study protocol was approved by the IRB and patient consent was obtained.

Methodology: Each patient meeting the inclusion criteria had serial blood tests run on both POC devices and in the lab. Two staff members were trained on the proper functioning for each POC device. Patient samples were collected and run simultaneously on both instruments. Multiple data points were recorded and analyzed to reflect:
Reliability,
Validity,
Ease of use,
Efficiency,
Equipment maintenance, and
Storage.

Results: 260 blood tests were performed. Reliability and efficiency were determined by the test failure rate. A failure rate of 8.5 %( 22 cartridges) was experienced using the single marker device vs. 0.4% (1 cartridge) for the multi-marker device. The validity was determined by correlating the results from both devices with the final clinical diagnosis. A 70.8% agreement was achieved with the single test device and 74% agreement for the multi-marker test device. Ease of use, equipment maintenance and ease of storage were evaluated using subjective surveys of the individuals performing the tests. It was determined that the single marker device was more susceptible to error and therefore required much more careful handling and more meticulous inoculation method than did the multi-marker device. The single marker device also required more frequent quality control.

Conclusions: When considering new technology to improve patient care in the ED, many factors need to be evaluated. A side by side comparison supports the decision making process and engages nursing staff in the process. This study demonstrated very similar correlations with the patient diagnosis, but identified some very distinct differences regarding ease of use, failures, maintenance and storage.
Repository Posting Date:
27-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Emergency Nurses Association

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleMethod Comparison of Two Cardiac Point-of-Care Devices in the EDen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/162491-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Method Comparison of Two Cardiac Point-of-Care Devices in the ED</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Emergency Nurses Association</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2008</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Valentine, Sharon, RN, MS, CCRC</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">Stony Brook University Medical Center</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Clinical Research Coordinator</td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">Suny at Stony Brook, Dept. of Emergency Medicine - HSC L-4 Room 080, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-8350, USA</td></tr><tr class="item-phone"><td class="label">Contact Telephone:</td><td class="value">(631) 444-8030</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">sharon.valentine@stonybrook.edu</td></tr><tr class="item-co-authors"><td class="label">Co-Authors:</td><td class="value">Jasmine Chohan, BA and Adam Singer, MD</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">[Research Poster] Purpose: This study compared two different marketed POC products used to measure cardiac enzymes. One device provided a rapid turnaround time for Troponin I only, and the other device provided rapid results for Myoglobin, CK-MB and Troponin I simultaneously. Multiple features to measure the potential benefits and disadvantages for each device were evaluated. <br/><br/>Design: This study was conducted using a prospective comparative descriptive design. <br/><br/>Setting: The study was conducted in the Emergency Department of an urban teaching hospital which is also a Certified Chest Pain Center.<br/><br/>Sample: The study was conducted using blood samples from 100 unique patients presenting to the Emergency Department with symptoms consistent with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Patients who could not or did not want to consent were excluded from the study. The study protocol was approved by the IRB and patient consent was obtained. <br/><br/>Methodology: Each patient meeting the inclusion criteria had serial blood tests run on both POC devices and in the lab. Two staff members were trained on the proper functioning for each POC device. Patient samples were collected and run simultaneously on both instruments. Multiple data points were recorded and analyzed to reflect: <br/>Reliability,<br/>Validity, <br/>Ease of use,<br/>Efficiency, <br/>Equipment maintenance, and<br/>Storage.<br/><br/>Results: 260 blood tests were performed. Reliability and efficiency were determined by the test failure rate. A failure rate of 8.5 %( 22 cartridges) was experienced using the single marker device vs. 0.4% (1 cartridge) for the multi-marker device. The validity was determined by correlating the results from both devices with the final clinical diagnosis. A 70.8% agreement was achieved with the single test device and 74% agreement for the multi-marker test device. Ease of use, equipment maintenance and ease of storage were evaluated using subjective surveys of the individuals performing the tests. It was determined that the single marker device was more susceptible to error and therefore required much more careful handling and more meticulous inoculation method than did the multi-marker device. The single marker device also required more frequent quality control. <br/> <br/>Conclusions: When considering new technology to improve patient care in the ED, many factors need to be evaluated. A side by side comparison supports the decision making process and engages nursing staff in the process. This study demonstrated very similar correlations with the patient diagnosis, but identified some very distinct differences regarding ease of use, failures, maintenance and storage. <br/></td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-27T10:29:06Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-27T10:29:06Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipEmergency Nurses Associationen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.