ERJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sediame, S
Right arrow Articles by Harf, A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sediame, S
Right arrow Articles by Harf, A
Eur Respir J 1999; 14: 214-217
Copyright © ERS Journals Ltd 1999

Original Articles

Accuracy of the i-STAT bedside blood gas analyser

S Sediame, F Zerah-Lancner, MP d'Ortho, S Adnot, and A Harf

The performance of the i-STAT portable clinical analyser for measuring blood gases and pH was evaluated with reference to a conventional blood gas analyser (ABL520 Radiometer). Ninety-two samples from the routine blood gas analysis laboratory were chosen according to a wide distribution of partial pressure of carbon dioxide (Pa,CO2), partial pressure oxygen (Pa,O2) and pH and then analysed. All measurements were performed in duplicate by trained technicians from the central hospital laboratory. Differences between duplicate measurements were computed for Pa,CO2: (1.2 versus 0.4%), Pa,O2 (1.7 versus 1.1%) and pH (0.06 versus 0.02%), for the i-STAT and ABL520, respectively. pH and Pa,CO2 values measured with the i-STAT were very close to those obtained with the ABL520, the difference (mean+/-SD) being 0.006+/-0.018 and -0.13+/-0.17 kPa, respectively. Statistical analysis showed that the differences between analysers did not depend on values of pH or Pa,CO2. The performance of the analysers depended on the level of PO2. Below 15 kPa (n=48), the two systems gave nearly identical values, the mean difference was 0.01+/-0.37 kPa. Between 16 and 55 kPa (n=44), there was a systematic but small (-0.69+/-0.67 kPa) underestimation of Pa,O2 measured with the i-STAT (p<10(-8)). In conclusion, this study shows that blood gas analysis using the i-STAT portable device is comparable with that performed by a conventional laboratory blood gas analyser.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Telemed TelecareHome page
T. Botsis, G. Demiris, S. Pedersen, and G. Hartvigsen
Home telecare technologies for the elderly
J Telemed Telecare, October 1, 2008; 14(7): 333 - 337.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Annals of Clinical & Laboratory ScienceHome page
C. Papadea, J. Foster, S. Grant, S. A. Ballard, J. C. Cate IV, W. M. Southgate, and D. M. Purohit
Evaluation of the i-STAT Portable Clinical Analyzer for Point-of-Care Blood Testing in the Intensive Care Units of a University Children's Hospital
Ann. Clin. Lab. Sci., July 1, 2002; 32(3): 231 - 243.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
A. Choiniere, F. Girard, D. Boudreault, M. Ruel, and D. C. Girard
Voluntary Hyperventilation Before a Rapid-Sequence Induction of Anesthesia Does Not Decrease Postintubation PaCO2
Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2001; 93(5): 1277 - 1280.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the European Respiratory Society.