McNamara P J, Sharief N
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Basildon Hospital, UK.
Acta Paediatr. 2001 Sep;90(9):1033-41. doi: 10.1080/080352501316978129.
Near-patient blood glucose monitoring is an essential component of neonatal intensive care but the analysers currently used are unreliable and inaccurate. The aim of this study was to compare a new glucose electrode-based analyser (EML 105) and a non-wipe reflectance photometry method (Advantage) as opposed to a recognized laboratory reference method (Hexokinase). We also investigated the effect of sample route and haematocrit on the accuracy of the glucose readings obtained by each method of analysis.
Whole blood glucose concentrations ranging from 0 to 3.5 mmol/l were carefully prepared in a laboratory setting and blood samples from each respective solution were then measured by EML 105 and Advantage analysers. The results obtained were then compared with the corresponding plasma glucose reading obtained by the Hexokinase method, using linear regression analysis. An in vivo study was subsequently performed on 103 neonates, over a 1-y period, using capillary and venous whole blood samples. Whole blood glucose concentration was estimated from each sample using both analysers and compared with the corresponding plasma glucose concentration estimated by the Hexokinase method. Venous blood was centrifuged and haematocrit was estimated using standardized curves. The effect of haematocrit on the agreement between whole blood and plasma glucose was investigated, estimating the degree of correlation on a scatterplot of the results and linear regression analysis.
Both the EML 105 and Hexokinase methods were highly accurate, in vitro, with small proportional biases of 2% and 5%, respectively. However, in vivo, both study analysers overestimated neonatal plasma glucose, ranging from at best 0.45 mmol/l (EML 105 venous) to 0.69 mmol/l (EML capillary). There was no significant difference in the agreement of capillary (GD = 0.12, 95% CI, [-0.32,0.08], p = 0.2) or venous samples (GD = 0.05, 95% CI. [0.09, 0.19], p = 0.49) with plasma glucose when analysed by either study method (GD = glucose difference between study analyser and reference method) However, the venous samples analysed by EML 105 estimated plasma glucose significantly better than capillary samples using the same method of analysis (GD = 0.24, 95% CI. [0.09,0.38], p < 0.01). The relationship between haematocrit and the resultant glucose differences was non-linear with correlation coefficients of r = -0.057 (EML 105 capillary), r = 0.145 (EML 105 venous), r = -0.127 (Advantage capillary) and r = -0.275 (Advantage venous). There was no significant difference in the effect of haematocrit on the performance of EML 105 versus Advantage, regardless of the sample route.
Both EML 105 and Advantage overestimated plasma glucose, with no significant difference in the performance of either analyser, regardless of the route of analysis. Agreement with plasma glucose was better for venous samples but this was only statistically significant when EML 105 capillary and venous results were compared. Haematocrit is not a significant confounding factor towards the performance of either EML 105 or Advantage in neonates, regardless of the route of sampling. The margin of overestimation of blood glucose prohibits the recommendation of both EML 105 and Advantage for routine neonatal glucose screening. The consequences include failure accurately to diagnose hypoglycaemia and delays in the instigation of therapeutic measures, both of which may potentially result in an adverse, long-term, neurodevelopmental outcome.
即时血糖监测是新生儿重症监护的重要组成部分,但目前使用的分析仪不可靠且不准确。本研究的目的是将一种新型的基于葡萄糖电极的分析仪(EML 105)和一种无需擦拭的反射光度法(Advantage)与公认的实验室参考方法(己糖激酶法)进行比较。我们还研究了样本采集途径和血细胞比容对每种分析方法所获葡萄糖读数准确性的影响。
在实验室环境中精心配制全血葡萄糖浓度范围为0至3.5 mmol/l的溶液,然后分别用EML 105分析仪和Advantage分析仪测量每种溶液的血样。然后使用线性回归分析,将所得结果与通过己糖激酶法获得的相应血浆葡萄糖读数进行比较。随后在103名新生儿中进行了为期1年的体内研究,使用毛细血管血和静脉全血样本。使用两种分析仪从每个样本中估算全血葡萄糖浓度,并与通过己糖激酶法估算的相应血浆葡萄糖浓度进行比较。将静脉血离心,并使用标准化曲线估算血细胞比容。研究血细胞比容对全血与血浆葡萄糖一致性的影响,通过结果散点图和线性回归分析估算相关性程度。
在体外,EML 105法和己糖激酶法都高度准确,比例偏差分别为2%和5%。然而,在体内,两种研究分析仪均高估了新生儿血浆葡萄糖,范围从最佳的0.45 mmol/l(EML 105静脉血)到0.69 mmol/l(EML毛细血管血)。当用任何一种研究方法分析时(GD = 研究分析仪与参考方法之间的葡萄糖差值),毛细血管血(GD = 0.12,95%可信区间,[-0.32,0.08],p = 0.2)或静脉血样本(GD = 0.05,95%可信区间,[0.09, 0.19],p = 0.49)与血浆葡萄糖的一致性无显著差异。然而,用EML 105分析的静脉血样本估算血浆葡萄糖明显优于使用相同分析方法的毛细血管血样本(GD = 0.24,95%可信区间,[0.09,0.38],p < 0.01)。血细胞比容与所得葡萄糖差值之间的关系是非线性的,相关系数分别为r = -0.057(EML 105毛细血管血),r = 0.145(EML 105静脉血),r = -0.127(Advantage毛细血管血)和r = -0.275(Advantage静脉血)。无论样本采集途径如何,血细胞比容对EML 105与Advantage性能的影响无显著差异。
EML 105和Advantage均高估了血浆葡萄糖,无论分析途径如何,两种分析仪的性能均无显著差异。静脉血样本与血浆葡萄糖的一致性更好,但仅在比较EML 105毛细血管血和静脉血结果时具有统计学意义。无论采样途径如何,血细胞比容对新生儿中EML 105或Advantage的性能都不是显著的混杂因素。血糖高估幅度使得不推荐将EML 105和Advantage用于常规新生儿血糖筛查。其后果包括无法准确诊断低血糖以及延迟采取治疗措施,这两者都可能潜在地导致不良的长期神经发育结局。