2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/182842
Category:
Abstract
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Accuracy of Glucose Point of Care Testing: Fingerstick or Arterial Catheter Blood?
Author(s):
Lacara, Teresita
Author Details:
Teresita Lacara, RN, BSN, Rex Healthcare, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, email: teresita.lacara@rexhealth.com
Abstract:
Poster Presentation: Purpose: This study examined the agreement between two sources of blood for glucose testing (arterial versus fingerstick) analyzed with a point of care (POC) testing device and a laboratory glucose analysis in critically ill patients. Background: Blood for POC testing is often obtained from a variety of sources: fingerstick, arterial and central venous catheters. The variability in glucose values between these different sources is not known. Methods: A method-comparison study design was used to examine the agreement between two sources of blood for POC glucose testing (fingerstick and arterial catheter) and the laboratory method for glucose determination. Bias, precision, and root mean square differences (RMSD) were then calculated to quantify the differences between the POC and laboratory methods for glucose measurement. Multiple regression (MR) analysis was used to determine if serum CO2, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and/or hematocrit significantly contributed to the difference in bias and precision for the two POC testing methods. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: A total of 42 subjects were evaluated. Laboratory analyzed glucose values ranged from 58 to 265 mg/dL. Differences and limits of agreement for the laboratory and two POC blood values were 1.0 +/- 12.3, with root-mean-square difference (RMSD) of 12.23 for the fingerstick POC and laboratory glucose values and -0.1+/- 11.0 with RMSD of 10.9 for the arterial POC and laboratory glucose values. MR analysis found only hematocrit and serum CO2 levels to be significant contributors to difference scores between the laboratory and arterial POC analysis methods (F3,38 =7.96, p=0.0003). Conclusions: This study found that the bias and precision of glucose POC testing with a fingerstick sample was less accurate. [Please contact presenter for more information.] References: 1. Umpierrez G, Isaacs S, Bazargan N, et al. Hyperglycemia: An independent marker of in-hospital mortality in patients with undiagnosed diabetes. J Clin Endo Met. 2002;87:978-982. 2. Van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, et al. Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients. N Eng J Med. 2001;345:1359-1367. 3. Pomposelli J, Baxter J, Babineau T, et al. Early postoperative glucose control predicts nosocomial infection rate in diabetic patients. J Parent Ent Nut. 1998;22:77-81. 4. Capes S, Hunt D, Malmberg K et al. Stress hyperglycaemia and increased risk of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes: A systematic overview. Lancet 2000;355:773-778. 5. Pierre E, Barrow R, Hawkins H, et al. Effects of insulin on wound healing. J Trauma. 1998;44:342-345. 6. Dagogo S, Alberti K. Management of diabetes mellitus in surgical patients. Diabetes Spectrum 2002;15(1): 44-48. 7. Dellinger E. Preventing surgical site infections: the importance of timing and glucose control. Inf Control Hosp Epidem. 2001; 22(10): 604-606. 8. Jacober D, Sowers J. An update of perioperative management of diabetes. Arch Int Med. 1999; 159: 2405-2411. 9. Malmberg K, Ryden L, Efendic S, et al. Randomized trial of insulin-glucose infusion followed by subcutaneous insulin treatment in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI study): Effects on mortality at 1 year. J Amer College Card. 1995;26:57-65. 10. Furnary A, Gao G, Grunkemeier G, et al. Continuous insulin infusion reduces mortality in patient with diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardio Surg. 2003;125:1007-1021. 11. Van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Bouillon R, et al. Outcome benefit of intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill: Insulin dose versus glycemic control. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:359-366. 12. Clement S, Braithwaite S, Magee M, et al. Management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitals. Diabetes Ca
Repository Posting Date:
28-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
28-Oct-2011
Conference Date:
2007
Conference Name:
ANCC National Magnet Conference
Conference Host:
American Nurses Credentialing Center
Conference Location:
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Description:
"Connect, Empower and Celebrate" was the theme of the 11th American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) National Magnet Conference, held 3-5 October, 2007 at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Note:
This is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.type.categoryAbstracten_US
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleAccuracy of Glucose Point of Care Testing: Fingerstick or Arterial Catheter Blood?en_GB
dc.contributor.authorLacara, Teresitaen_US
dc.author.detailsTeresita Lacara, RN, BSN, Rex Healthcare, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, email: teresita.lacara@rexhealth.comen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/182842-
dc.description.abstractPoster Presentation: Purpose: This study examined the agreement between two sources of blood for glucose testing (arterial versus fingerstick) analyzed with a point of care (POC) testing device and a laboratory glucose analysis in critically ill patients. Background: Blood for POC testing is often obtained from a variety of sources: fingerstick, arterial and central venous catheters. The variability in glucose values between these different sources is not known. Methods: A method-comparison study design was used to examine the agreement between two sources of blood for POC glucose testing (fingerstick and arterial catheter) and the laboratory method for glucose determination. Bias, precision, and root mean square differences (RMSD) were then calculated to quantify the differences between the POC and laboratory methods for glucose measurement. Multiple regression (MR) analysis was used to determine if serum CO2, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and/or hematocrit significantly contributed to the difference in bias and precision for the two POC testing methods. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: A total of 42 subjects were evaluated. Laboratory analyzed glucose values ranged from 58 to 265 mg/dL. Differences and limits of agreement for the laboratory and two POC blood values were 1.0 +/- 12.3, with root-mean-square difference (RMSD) of 12.23 for the fingerstick POC and laboratory glucose values and -0.1+/- 11.0 with RMSD of 10.9 for the arterial POC and laboratory glucose values. MR analysis found only hematocrit and serum CO2 levels to be significant contributors to difference scores between the laboratory and arterial POC analysis methods (F3,38 =7.96, p=0.0003). Conclusions: This study found that the bias and precision of glucose POC testing with a fingerstick sample was less accurate. [Please contact presenter for more information.] References: 1. Umpierrez G, Isaacs S, Bazargan N, et al. Hyperglycemia: An independent marker of in-hospital mortality in patients with undiagnosed diabetes. J Clin Endo Met. 2002;87:978-982. 2. Van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, et al. Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients. N Eng J Med. 2001;345:1359-1367. 3. Pomposelli J, Baxter J, Babineau T, et al. Early postoperative glucose control predicts nosocomial infection rate in diabetic patients. J Parent Ent Nut. 1998;22:77-81. 4. Capes S, Hunt D, Malmberg K et al. Stress hyperglycaemia and increased risk of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes: A systematic overview. Lancet 2000;355:773-778. 5. Pierre E, Barrow R, Hawkins H, et al. Effects of insulin on wound healing. J Trauma. 1998;44:342-345. 6. Dagogo S, Alberti K. Management of diabetes mellitus in surgical patients. Diabetes Spectrum 2002;15(1): 44-48. 7. Dellinger E. Preventing surgical site infections: the importance of timing and glucose control. Inf Control Hosp Epidem. 2001; 22(10): 604-606. 8. Jacober D, Sowers J. An update of perioperative management of diabetes. Arch Int Med. 1999; 159: 2405-2411. 9. Malmberg K, Ryden L, Efendic S, et al. Randomized trial of insulin-glucose infusion followed by subcutaneous insulin treatment in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI study): Effects on mortality at 1 year. J Amer College Card. 1995;26:57-65. 10. Furnary A, Gao G, Grunkemeier G, et al. Continuous insulin infusion reduces mortality in patient with diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardio Surg. 2003;125:1007-1021. 11. Van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Bouillon R, et al. Outcome benefit of intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill: Insulin dose versus glycemic control. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:359-366. 12. Clement S, Braithwaite S, Magee M, et al. Management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitals. Diabetes Caen_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-28T15:42:32Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-28en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-28T15:42:32Z-
dc.conference.date2007en_US
dc.conference.nameANCC National Magnet Conferenceen_US
dc.conference.hostAmerican Nurses Credentialing Centeren_US
dc.conference.locationAtlanta, Georgia, USAen_US
dc.description"Connect, Empower and Celebrate" was the theme of the 11th American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) National Magnet Conference, held 3-5 October, 2007 at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta, Georgia, USA.en_US
dc.description.noteThis is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.-
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.