Skip to main content
Log in

A Comparative Study on Reliability of Point of Care Sodium and Potassium Estimation in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Indian Journal of Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To compare sodium and potassium levels in children as done with Blood Gas Analyzer (BGA) at point of care testing in pediatric ICU vs. that done in laboratory electrolyte analyzer.

Methods

This prospective method comparison study was done from February to April 2012 in Pediatric ICU of tertiary care hospital at Delhi. Sixty consecutive patients were tested during the period. Paired blood samples for venous blood gas to be tested on BGA and serum electrolytes to be tested on auto-analyzers (AA) were taken as per standard technique. Data was collected and 59 paired samples were analyzed for sodium and potassium levels. They were analyzed according to CLSI document EP15-A2 using ACB method comparison software.

Results

Mean sodium measured on the BGA was 132.8 ± 12.2 mmol/L where as measured by AA was 141.5 ± 11.1 mmol/L. The mean difference between the two was −8.76 mmol/L (p < 0.001). The difference was statistically significant in all three subgroups of hypernatremia, isonatremia and hyponatremia (p < 0.001). Potassium level in BGA was 3.53 ± 0.81 mmol/L and AA was 4.28 ± 1.05 mmol/L. The mean difference between the BGA and AA was −0.75 mmol/L (p < 0.0001). The difference was statistically significant in patients with normokalemia and hyperkalemia (p < 0.0001). The difference was non significant in patients with hypokalemia (p = 0.051).

Conclusions

Blood gas analyzers underestimates Na + and K + values if sampling is done using liquid sodium heparin and if all other potential pre-analytical errors of testing are taken care of. The Bland Altman’s analysis in the present study showed a significant systematic bias and very wide limits of agreement for both sodium and potassium, which is not clinically acceptable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jain A, Subhan I, Joshi M. Comparison of the point-of-care blood gas analyzer versus the laboratory auto-analyzer for the measurement of electrolytes. Int J Emerg Med. 2009;2:117–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Westgard JO. Charts of operational process specifications (“OPSpecs charts”) for assessing the precision, accuracy, and quality control needed to satisfy proficiency testing performance criteria. Clin Chem. 1992;38:1226–33.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Morimatsu H, Rocktäschel J, Bellomo R, Uchino S, Goldsmith D, Gutteridge G. Comparison of point-of-care versus central laboratory measurement of electrolyte concentrations on calculations of the anion gap and the strong ion difference. Anesthesiology. 2003;98:1077–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chacko B, Peter JV, Patole S, Fleming JJ, Selvakumar R. Electrolytes assessed by point-of-care testing - Are the values comparable with results obtained from the central laboratory? Indian J Crit Care Med. 2011;15:24–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Higgins C. The use of heparin in preparing samples for blood-gas analysis. MLO Med Lab Obs. 2007;39:16–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Whitley E, Jonathan B. Statistics review 4: sample size calculations. Crit Care. 2002;6:335–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Measurement Verification - How to carry out performance checks on your new analyser - guidance and downloadable spreadsheets. http://www.acb.org.uk. Assessed 20 Jun 2012.

  8. King RI, Mackay RJ, Florkowski CM, Lynn AM. Electrolytes in sick neonates – which sodium is the right answer? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2012; doi:10.1136/archdischild-2011-300929.

  9. Arthurs O, Pattnayak S, Bewley B, Kelsall W. Clinical impact of point-of-care testing using the OMNI-S blood gas analyzer in a neonatal intensive care setting. Point of care. Near Patient Test Technol. 2010; doi:10.1097/POC.0b013e3181d2d6b0.

  10. Yip PM, Chan MK, Zielinski N, Adeli K. Heparin interference in whole blood sodium measurements in a pediatric setting. Clin Biochem. 2006;39:391–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bonini P, Plebani M, Ceriotti F, Rubboli F. Errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem. 2002;48:691–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Van BM, Scharnhorst V. Electrolyte-balanced heparin in blood gas syringes can introduce a significant bias in the measurement of positively charged electrolytes. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011;49:249–52.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

None.

Role of Funding Source

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandeep Kumar Kanwal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chhapola, V., Kanwal, S.K., Sharma, R. et al. A Comparative Study on Reliability of Point of Care Sodium and Potassium Estimation in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Pediatr 80, 731–735 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-013-0977-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-013-0977-z

Keywords

Navigation