Point-of-Care Versus Central Laboratory Measurements of Hemoglobin, Hematocrit, Glucose, Bicarbonate and Electrolytes: A Prospective Observational Study in Critically Ill Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid detection of abnormal biological values using point-of-care (POC) testing allows clinicians to promptly initiate therapy; however, there are concerns regarding the reliability of POC measurements. We investigated the agreement between the latest generation blood gas analyzer and central laboratory measurements of electrolytes, bicarbonate, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and glucose. METHODS: 314 paired samples were collected prospectively from 51 critically ill patients. All samples were drawn simultaneously in the morning from an arterial line. BD Vacutainer tubes were analyzed in the central laboratory using Beckman Coulter analyzers (AU 5800 and DxH 800). BD Preset 3 ml heparinized-syringes were analyzed immediately in the ICU using the POC Siemens RAPIDPoint 500 blood gas system. We used CLIA proficiency testing criteria to define acceptable analytical performance and interchangeability. RESULTS: Biases, limits of agreement (±1.96 SD) and coefficients of correlation were respectively: 1.3 (-2.2 to 4.8 mmol/L, r = 0.936) for sodium; 0.2 (-0.2 to 0.6 mmol/L, r = 0.944) for potassium; -0.9 (-3.7 to 2 mmol/L, r = 0.967) for chloride; 0.8 (-1.9 to 3.4 mmol/L, r = 0.968) for bicarbonate; -11 (-30 to 9 mg/dL, r = 0.972) for glucose; -0.8 (-1.4 to -0.2 g/dL, r = 0.985) for hemoglobin; and -1.1 (-2.9 to 0.7%, r = 0.981) for hematocrit. All differences were below CLIA cut-off values, except for hemoglobin. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to central Laboratory analyzers, the POC Siemens RAPIDPoint 500 blood gas system satisfied the CLIA criteria of interchangeability for all tested parameters, except for hemoglobin. These results are warranted for our own procedures and devices. Bearing these restrictions, we recommend clinicians to initiate an appropriate therapy based on POC testing without awaiting a control measurement.

Safety and Efficacy of Combined Extracorporeal CO2 Removal and Renal Replacement Therapy in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Acute Kidney Injury: The Pulmonary and Renal Support in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of combining extracorporeal CO2 removal with continuous renal replacement therapy in patients presenting with acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute kidney injury. DESIGN: Prospective human observational study. SETTINGS: Patients received volume-controlled mechanical ventilation according to the acute respiratory distress syndrome net protocol. Continuous venovenous hemofiltration therapy was titrated to maintain maximum blood flow and an effluent flow of 45 mL/kg/h with 33% predilution. PATIENTS: Eleven patients presenting with both acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute kidney injury required renal replacement therapy. INTERVENTIONS: A membrane oxygenator (0.65 m) was inserted within the hemofiltration circuit, either upstream (n = 7) or downstream (n = 5) of the hemofilter. Baseline corresponded to tidal volume 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight without extracorporeal CO2 removal. The primary endpoint was 20% reduction in PaCO2 at 20 minutes after extracorporeal CO2 removal initiation. Tidal volume was subsequently reduced to 4 mL/kg for the remaining 72 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twelve combined therapies were conducted in the 11 patients. Age was 70 ± 9 years, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II was 69 ± 13, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 14 ± 4, lung injury score was 3 ± 0.5, and PaO2/FIO2 was 135 ± 41. Adding extracorporeal CO2 removal at tidal volume 6 mL/kg decreased PaCO2 by 21% (95% CI, 17-25%), from 47 ± 11 to 37 ± 8 Torr (p < 0.001). Lowering tidal volume to 4 mL/kg reduced minute ventilation from 7.8 ± 1.5 to 5.2 ± 1.1 L/min and plateau pressure from 25 ± 4 to 21 ± 3 cm H2O and raised PaCO2 from 37 ± 8 to 48 ± 10 Torr (all p < 0.001). On an average of both positions, the oxygenator's blood flow was 410 ± 30 mL/min and the CO2 removal rate was 83 ± 20 mL/min. The oxygenator blood flow (p <0.001) and the CO2 removal rate (p = 0.083) were higher when the membrane oxygenator was placed upstream of the hemofilter. There was no safety concern. CONCLUSIONS: Combining extracorporeal CO2 removal and continuous venovenous hemofiltration in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute kidney injury is safe and allows efficient blood purification together with enhanced lung protective ventilation.