• 1.

    Balakrishnan A, Drobatz KJ, Reineke EL. Development of anemia, phlebotomy practices, and blood transfusion requirements in 45 critically ill cats (2009–2011). J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio) 2016;26:406–411.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Lynch AM, Respess M, Boll AE, et al. Hospital-acquired anemia in critically ill dogs and cats: a multi-institutional study. J Vet Intern Med 2016;30:141146.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Kerl ME, Hohenhaus AE. Packed red blood cell transfusions in dogs: 131 cases (1989). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1993;202:14951499.

  • 4.

    Stone E, Badner D, Cotter SM. Trends in transfusion medicine in dogs at a veterinary school clinic: 315 cases (1986–1989). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992;200:10001004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Corwin HL, Gettinger A, Pearl RG, et al. The CRIT Study: anemia and blood transfusion in the critically ill—current clinical practice in the United States. Crit Care Med 2004;32:3952.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Gaunt SD, Prescott-Mathews JS, King WW, et al. Clinical hematology practices at veterinary teaching hospitals and private diagnostic laboratories. Vet Clin Pathol 1995;24:6467.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Rishniw M, Pion PD. Evaluation of performance of veterinary inclinic hematology analyzers. Vet Clin Pathol 2016;45:604614.

  • 8.

    Breheny CR, Brown A, Handel I, et al. Inter- and intra-operator variability in the analysis of packed cell volume. J Small Anim Pract 2017;58:2934.

  • 9.

    Bull BS, Hay KL. Is the packed cell volume (PCV) reliable? Lab Hematol 2001;7:191196.

  • 10.

    Junker R, Schlebusch H, Luppa PB. Point-of-care testing in hospitals and primary care. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010;107:561567.

  • 11.

    Woodley Equipment Co Ltd. InSight HCT meter: instruction manual. Available at: www.jorvet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/InSight-HCT-Meter-Instruction.pdf. Accessed Nov 22, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Nikolac N. Lipemia: causes, interference mechanisms, detection and management. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2014;24:5767.

  • 13.

    Lippi G, Blanckaert N, Bonini P, et al. Haemolysis: an overview of the leading cause of unsuitable specimens in clinical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:764772.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Kroll MH, Elin RJ. Interference with clinical laboratory analyses. Clin Chem 1994;40:19962005.

  • 15.

    Kroll MH. Evaluating interference caused by lipemia. Clin Chem 2004;50:19681969.

  • 16.

    Momeni A, Pincus M, Libien J. Validation of new tests. In: Momeni A, Pincus M, Libien J, eds. Introduction to statistical methods in clinical pathology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG, 2018;219242.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Flatland B, Freeman KP, Friedrichs KR, et al. ASVCP quality assurance guidelines: control of general analytical factors in veterinary laboratories. Vet Clin Pathol 2010;39:264277.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Hornung RW, Reed LD. Estimation of average concentration in the presence of nondetectable values. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 1990;5:4651.

  • 19.

    Mandrekar JN. Measures of interrater agreement. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:67.

  • 20.

    Nabity MB, Harr KE, Camus MS, et al. ASVCP guidelines: allowable total error hematology. Vet Clin Pathol 2018;47:921.

  • 21.

    Neville RG. Evaluation of portable haemoglobinometer in general practice. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987;294:12631265.

  • 22.

    Weiss GB, Besman JD. Spurious automated red cell values in warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia. Am J Hematol 1984;17:433435.

  • 23.

    Zandecki M, Genevieve F, Gerard J, et al. Spurious counts and spurious results on haematology analysers: a review. Part II: white blood cells, red blood cells, haemoglobin, red cell indices and reticulocytes. Int J Lab Hematol 2007;29:2141.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Flatland B, Freeman KP, Vap LM, et al. ASVCP guidelines: quality assurance for point-of-care testing in veterinary medicine. Vet Clin Pathol 2013;42:405423.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Dimeski G. Interference testing. Clin Biochem Rev 2008;29(suppl 1):S43S48.

  • 26.

    Cornet E, Behier C, Troussard X. Guidance for storing blood samples in laboratories performing complete blood count with differential. Int J Lab Hematol 2012;34:655660.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Gunawardena D, Jayaweera S, Madhubhashini G, et al. Reliability of parameters of complete blood count with different storage conditions. J Clin Lab Anal 2017;31:e22042.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Chevalier H, Posner LP, Ludders JW, et al. Accuracy and precision of a point-of-care hemoglobinometer for measuring hemoglobin concentration and estimating packed cell volume in horses. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;223:7883.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Giger U. Anemia. In: Silverstein D, Hopper K, eds. Small animal critical care medicine. 2nd ed. St Louis: Saunders, 2015;575580.

Advertisement

Effects of potential confounding variables on accuracy of a commercially available veterinary point-of-care hematocrit meter in the evaluation of blood samples from dogs and cats

View More View Less
  • From the Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the agreement in measurements of Hct values and hemoglobin (Hgb) concentrations in blood samples from dogs and cats between a commercially available veterinary point-of-care (POC) Hct meter and a laboratory-based (LAB) analyzer and to determine the effects of various conditions (ie, lipemia, hyperbilirubinemia, hemolysis, autoagglutination, and reticulocytosis) on the accuracy of the POC meter.

SAMPLES

Blood samples from 86 dogs and 18 cats

PROCEDURES

Blood samples were run in duplicate on the POC meter, which reported Hgb concentration, measured via optical reflectance, and a calculated Hct value. The POC meter results were compared with results from a LAB analyzer. Blood samples with grossly visible lipemia, icterus, hemolysis, and autoagglutination were noted.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD values for LAB Hct were 33.9 ± 15.73% (range, 3.9% to 75.8%), and for LAB Hgb were 11.2 ± 5.4 g/dL (range, 1 to 24.6 g/dL). Mean bias between POC Hct and LAB Hct values was–1.8% with 95% limits of agreement (LOAs) of–11.1% to 7.5% and between POC Hgb and LAB Hgb concentrations was–0.5 g/dL with 95% LOAs of–3.8 to 2.8 g/dL. There was no influence of lipemia (14 samples), icterus (23), autoagglutination (14), hemolysis (12), or high reticulocyte count (15) on the accuracy of the POC meter. The POC meter was unable to read 13 blood samples; 9 had a LAB Hct ≤ 12%, and 4 had a LAB Hct concentration between 13% and 17%.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Overall, measurements from the POC meter had good agreement with those from the LAB analyzer. However, LOAs were fairly wide, indicating that there may be clinically important differences between measurements from the POC meter and LAB analyzer. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2021;259:49–55)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the agreement in measurements of Hct values and hemoglobin (Hgb) concentrations in blood samples from dogs and cats between a commercially available veterinary point-of-care (POC) Hct meter and a laboratory-based (LAB) analyzer and to determine the effects of various conditions (ie, lipemia, hyperbilirubinemia, hemolysis, autoagglutination, and reticulocytosis) on the accuracy of the POC meter.

SAMPLES

Blood samples from 86 dogs and 18 cats

PROCEDURES

Blood samples were run in duplicate on the POC meter, which reported Hgb concentration, measured via optical reflectance, and a calculated Hct value. The POC meter results were compared with results from a LAB analyzer. Blood samples with grossly visible lipemia, icterus, hemolysis, and autoagglutination were noted.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD values for LAB Hct were 33.9 ± 15.73% (range, 3.9% to 75.8%), and for LAB Hgb were 11.2 ± 5.4 g/dL (range, 1 to 24.6 g/dL). Mean bias between POC Hct and LAB Hct values was–1.8% with 95% limits of agreement (LOAs) of–11.1% to 7.5% and between POC Hgb and LAB Hgb concentrations was–0.5 g/dL with 95% LOAs of–3.8 to 2.8 g/dL. There was no influence of lipemia (14 samples), icterus (23), autoagglutination (14), hemolysis (12), or high reticulocyte count (15) on the accuracy of the POC meter. The POC meter was unable to read 13 blood samples; 9 had a LAB Hct ≤ 12%, and 4 had a LAB Hct concentration between 13% and 17%.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Overall, measurements from the POC meter had good agreement with those from the LAB analyzer. However, LOAs were fairly wide, indicating that there may be clinically important differences between measurements from the POC meter and LAB analyzer. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2021;259:49–55)

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Koenig akoenig@uga.edu).