Is There a Risk of Misinterpretation of Potassium Concentration from Undetectable Hemolysis Using a POCT Blood Gas Analyzer in the Emergency Department?
POCT arterial blood gasses analysis in ED
POCT device for hemolysis detection
blood samples
pre-analytical errors
Journal
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)
ISSN: 1648-9144
Titre abrégé: Medicina (Kaunas)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9425208
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Dec 2022
28 Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
31
10
2022
revised:
14
12
2022
accepted:
21
12
2022
entrez:
21
1
2023
pubmed:
22
1
2023
medline:
25
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Background and Objectives: Hemolysis is reported to be present in up to 10% of blood gas specimens in the central lab; however, few data on the incidence of hemolysis using a point-of-care testing (POCT) blood gas analysis are available in the setting of the emergency department. The aims of this study were: (1) to analyze the prevalence of hemolysis in blood gas samples collected in the ED using a POCT device; and (2) to evaluate the impact of hemolysis on blood sample results and its clinical consequences. Materials and Methods: We collected 525 consecutive POCT arterial blood gas samples using syringes with electrolyte-balanced heparin within 3 different EDs in the metropolitan area of Rome. Immediately after the collection, the blood samples were checked for the presence of hemolysis with a POCT instrument (i.e., HEMCHECK, H-10 ®). The samples were then subsequently processed for blood gasses, and an electrolytes analysis by a second operator blinded for the hemolysis results. A venous blood sample was simultaneously collected, analyzed for it’s potassium value, and used as a reference. Results: Of the samples, 472 were considered for the statistics, while 53 were excluded due to the high percentage of hemolysis due to operator fault in carrying out the measurement. The final mean hemolysis per operator was 12% (±13% SD), and the total final hemolysis was 14.4%.Potassium (K+) was significantly higher in the hemolyzed group compared with the non-hemolyzed sample (4.60 ± 0.11 vs. 3.99 ± 0.03 mEq/L; p < 0.001), and there were differences between arterial potassium versus venous potassium (D(a-v) K+, 0.29 ± 0.06 vs.−0.19 ± 0.02 mEq/L, p < 0.01). A Bland−Altman analysis confirmed that hemolysis significantly overestimated blood potassium level. Conclusion: Almost 12% of POCT blood gas analysis samples performed in the ED could be hemolyzed, and the presence of this hemolysis is not routinely detected. This could cause an error in the interpretation of the results, leading to the consideration of potassium concentrations being below the lower limit within the normal limits and also leading to the diagnosis of false hyperkalemia, which would have potential clinical consequences in therapeutic decision-making in the ED. The routine use of a POCT hemolysis detector could help prevent any misdiagnoses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36676689
pii: medicina59010066
doi: 10.3390/medicina59010066
pmc: PMC9861078
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Potassium
RWP5GA015D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011 May;49(5):931-2
pubmed: 21261550
Eur Geriatr Med. 2021 Oct;12(5):981-987
pubmed: 33830482
Clin Lab. 2018 Jan 1;64(1):1-9
pubmed: 29479878
Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2021 Apr 01;2021:
pubmed: 33960323
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018 Feb;142(2):229-235
pubmed: 29106292
Clin Chem. 2002 May;48(5):691-8
pubmed: 11978595
Clin Biochem. 2012 Mar;45(4-5):372-3
pubmed: 22198577
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2022 Jun 15;32(2):020708
pubmed: 35799987
ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:627673
pubmed: 25405229
Clin Chim Acta. 2009 Jun;404(1):79-85
pubmed: 19328194
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015 Jun 05;25(2):141-51
pubmed: 26110027
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2021 Jul 06;59(11):1747-1760
pubmed: 34225398
Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2019 Sep;79(5):283-287
pubmed: 31066302
J Appl Lab Med. 2020 Mar 1;5(2):332-341
pubmed: 32445387
Diagnosis (Berl). 2019 Mar 26;6(1):25-31
pubmed: 29794250
N Am J Med Sci. 2013 Apr;5(4):255-9
pubmed: 23724399
Am J Nephrol. 2017;46(3):213-221
pubmed: 28866674
J Appl Lab Med. 2020 Jul 1;5(4):732-737
pubmed: 32603446
Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2011 May-Jun;48(3):143-53
pubmed: 21875312
J Appl Lab Med. 2018 Jul 1;3(1):144-145
pubmed: 33626821
Am Fam Physician. 2015 Sep 15;92(6):487-95
pubmed: 26371733
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2008;46(6):764-72
pubmed: 18601596