Hemodynamics, fluids & transfusion
Evaluation of point-of-care haemoglobin measurement accuracy in surgery (PREMISE) and implications for transfusion practice: a prospective cohort study
Authors' conclusion
No point-of-care Hgb device demonstrated limits of agreement that were smaller than the agreement difference of 4 g L-1.
Study context
- Population
- Consecutive patients undergoing noncardiac surgery and requiring point-of-care haemoglobin (Hgb) measurements1,735 intraoperative samples
- Participants
- 1,139 patients
- Comparison
- Point-of-care Hgb devices vs laboratory Hgb
- Outcome
- Individual pairwise comparisons between point-of-care and laboratory Hgb values; agreement threshold within 4 g L-1 (limits of agreement)
Methodological detailsmethod comparison, two academic hospitals
- Method comparison
- Two academic hospitals
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Limits of agreement vs laboratory Hgb, samples with Hgb <100 g L-1
| Test or model | Limits of agreement |
|---|---|
| HemoCue® | −9.5 to 8.0 |
| i-STAT® | −16.2 to 11.5 |
| Rad-67® | −14.7 to 40.5 |
Limits of agreement
HemoCue®−9.5 to 8.0
i-STAT®−16.2 to 11.5
Rad-67®−14.7 to 40.5
Further findings
| Outcome | HemoCue® | i-STAT® | Rad-67® |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potentially clinically significant transfusion error | 5.8% | 25.3% | 28.2% |
| Hgb measurements within 10 g L-1 of laboratory valueIntraoperative blood samples | 98% | — not stated in the abstract | — not stated in the abstract |
— not stated in the abstract
Original publication
Evaluation of point-of-care haemoglobin measurement accuracy in surgery (PREMISE) and implications for transfusion practice: a prospective cohort study. Br J Anaesth. Published 9 January 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →