Lesho E P, Roth B J
Department of Medicine, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Wash., USA. LESHO,
Chest. 1997 Nov 5;112(5):1291-2. doi: 10.1378/chest.112.5.1291.
Our laboratory uses pH paper rather than a blood gas analyzer to measure pleural fluid pH to decrease cost and avoid analyzer malfunction due to viscous fluids.
To compare these two methods of determining pleural fluid pH, 42 patients undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic thoracentesis had two 1-mL aliquots of pleural fluid anaerobically collected in a heparinized syringe and placed on ice. pH measurements were made using litmus paper (pHydron Vivid 6-8 brand litmus paper; MicroEssential Labs; Brooklyn, NY) and the model 995-Hb blood gas analyzer (AVL Instruments; Roswell, GA) within 1 h of collection. Agreement analysis was performed in three ways: on the entire group; in subcategories of complicated or uncomplicated parapneumonic effusions (<7.1, 7.1 to 7.3, >7.3); and in subcategories of poor prognosis or better prognosis malignant effusions(<7.3, >7.3).
pH measured with pH paper was significantly more variable (SD=0.55, coefficient of variation [CV]=7.5%) than was pH measured with the blood gas analyzer (SD=0.11, CV=1.5%). There was no significant correlation between values obtained with the two techniques (r=-0.26, SD of the differences=0.59). Using the pH subcategories, there was 72% discordance in classification between litmus paper and arterial blood gas (ABG) determinations for patients with parapneumonic effusions. In patients with malignant effusions, there was 30% discordance. The pH values obtained by the ABG analyzer predicted tube thoracostomy 72% of the time, whereas the pH values obtained using pH paper were consistent only 36% of the time.
Determination of pleural fluid pH using pH paper is unreliable and should not be considered an acceptable alternative to the blood gas analyzer. There is no need to determine pH on purulent samples. Hospital laboratories will be more likely to allow the use of the ABG analyzer on fluids other than blood if clinicians keep this in mind.
我们实验室使用pH试纸而非血气分析仪来测量胸腔积液pH值,以降低成本并避免因液体黏稠导致分析仪故障。
为比较这两种测定胸腔积液pH值的方法,42例行诊断性或治疗性胸腔穿刺术的患者,用肝素化注射器厌氧采集两份1 mL胸腔积液样本,置于冰上。在采集后1小时内,分别使用石蕊试纸(pHydron Vivid 6 - 8品牌石蕊试纸;MicroEssential Labs;纽约布鲁克林)和995 - Hb型血气分析仪(AVL Instruments;佐治亚州罗斯韦尔)进行pH测量。采用三种方式进行一致性分析:对整个研究组;在复杂性或非复杂性类肺炎性胸腔积液亚组(<7.1、7.1至7.3、>7.3);以及预后差或预后较好的恶性胸腔积液亚组(<7.3、>7.3)。
用pH试纸测得的pH值变异性显著高于血气分析仪测得的pH值(标准差分别为0.55和0.11,变异系数分别为7.5%和1.5%)。两种技术测得的值之间无显著相关性(r = -0.26,差值标准差 = 0.59)。对于类肺炎性胸腔积液患者,使用石蕊试纸和动脉血气(ABG)测定法在pH亚组分类上的不一致率为72%。对于恶性胸腔积液患者,不一致率为30%。ABG分析仪测得的pH值在72%的时间里可预测胸腔闭式引流术,而使用pH试纸测得的pH值仅在36%的时间里保持一致。
使用pH试纸测定胸腔积液pH值不可靠,不应被视为血气分析仪的可接受替代方法。无需对脓性样本测定pH值。如果临床医生牢记这一点,医院实验室将更有可能允许对血液以外的液体使用ABG分析仪。