Home Performance of strip-based glucose meters and cassette-based blood gas analyzer for monitoring glucose levels in a surgical intensive care setting
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Performance of strip-based glucose meters and cassette-based blood gas analyzer for monitoring glucose levels in a surgical intensive care setting

  • Helena Claerhout , Martine De Prins , Dieter Mesotten , Greet Van den Berghe , Chantal Mathieu , Johan Van Eldere and Florent Vanstapel EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: July 2, 2015

Abstract

Background: We verified the analytical performance of strip-based handheld glucose meters (GM) for prescription use, in a comparative split-sample protocol using blood gas samples from a surgical intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods: Freestyle Precision Pro (Abbott), StatStrip Connectivity Meter (Nova), ACCU-CHEK Inform II (Roche) were evaluated for recovery/linearity, imprecision/repeatability. The GMs and the ABL90 (Radiometer) blood gas analyzer (BGA) were tested for relative accuracy vs. the comparator hexokinase glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase (HK/G6PDH) assay on a Cobas c702 analyzer (Roche).

Results: Recovery of spiked glucose was linear up to 19.3 mmol/L (347 mg/dL) with a slope of 0.91–0.94 for all GMs. Repeatability estimated by pooling duplicate measurements on samples below (n=9), in (n=51) or above (n=80) the 4.2–5.9 mM (74–106 mg/dL) range were for Freestyle Precision Pro: 4.2%, 4.0%, 3.6%; StatStrip Connectivity Meter: 4.0%, 4.3%, 4.5%; and ACCU-CHEK Inform II: 1.4%, 2.5%, 3.5%. GMs were in agreement with the comparator method. The BGA outperformed the GMs, with a MARD of 3.9% compared to 6.5%, 5.8% and 4.4% for the FreeStyle, StatStrip and ACCU-CHEK, respectively. Zero % of the BGA results deviated more than the FDA 10% criterion as compared to 9.4%, 3.7% and 2.2% for the FreeStyle, StatStrip and ACCU-CHEK, respectively. For all GMs, icodextrin did not interfere. Variation in the putative influence factors hematocrit and O2 tension could not explain observed differences with the comparator method.

Conclusions: GMs quantified blood glucose in whole blood at about the 10% total error criterion, proposed by the FDA for prescription use.


Corresponding author: Florent Vanstapel, Laboratory Medicine, UZ Leuven, Campus Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium, E-mail: ; and Department of Public Health, Biomedical Sciences Group, KU Leuven, Belgium

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: The manufacturers provided GMs and consumables free of charge (Abbott Diagnostics, Belgium and Luxemburg, Wavre, Belgium; Menarini Diagnostics Benelux, Zaventem, Belgium; and Roche Diagnostics Belgium, Vilvoorde, Belgium). All experiments and the preparation and submission of this report were conducted without interference by the manufacturers. DM holds a senior clinical investigator fellowship from the FWO Research Foundation – Flanders. Supported by IWT-TBM program (100793).

  3. Employment or leadership: FV received a travel grant from Roche. Results were in part presented as an abstract at the 2nd Belgian National POCT Symposium [44].

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Colwell JA. Consensus statement on self-monitoring of blood glucose. Diabetes Care 1987;10:95–9.10.2337/diacare.10.1.95Search in Google Scholar

2. Sacks DB, Arnold M, Bakris GL, Bruns DE, Horvath AR, Kirkman MS, et al. Position statement executive summary: guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1419–23.10.2337/dc11-9997Search in Google Scholar

3. Wiener RS, Wiener DC, Larson RJ. Benefits and risks of tight glucose control in critically ill adults: a meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc 2008;300:933–44.10.1001/jama.300.8.933Search in Google Scholar

4. Scott MG, Bruns DE, Boyd JC, Sacks DB. Tight glucose control in the intensive care unit: are glucose meters up to the task? Clin Chem 2009;55:18–20.10.1373/clinchem.2008.117291Search in Google Scholar

5. Kimberly MM, Vesper HW, Caudill SP, Ethridge SF, Archibold E, Porter KH, et al. Variability among five over-the-counter blood glucose monitors. Clin Chim Acta 2006;364:292–7.10.1016/j.cca.2005.07.027Search in Google Scholar

6. Boyd JC, Bruns DE. Quality specifications for glucose meters: assessment by simulation modeling of errors in insulin dose. Clin Chem 2001;47:209–14.10.1093/clinchem/47.2.209Search in Google Scholar

7. Boyd JC, Bruns DE. Monte Carlo simulation in establishing analytical quality requirements for clinical laboratory tests meeting clinical needs. Methods Enzymol 2009;467:411–33.10.1016/S0076-6879(09)67016-6Search in Google Scholar

8. Ricos C, Alvarez V, Cava F, Garcia-Lario JV, Hernandez A, Jimenez CV, et al. Current databases on biologic variation: pros, cons and progress. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1999;59:491–500.10.1080/00365519950185229Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 15197:2003(E) In vitro diagnostic test systems – requirements for blood-glucose monitoring systems for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

10. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 15197:2013(E) In vitro diagnostic test systems – requirements for blood-glucose monitoring systems for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

11. CLSI. Point-of-care blood glucose testing in acute and chronic care facilities; approved guideline – third edition. Document POCT12-A3/Wayne, PA: CLSI, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

12. US Food and Drug Administration. Blood glucose monitoring test systems for prescription point-of-care use – Draft guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM380325.pdf. Accessed 15 November, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

13. Tietz NW, Shuey DF, Wekstein DR. Laboratory values in fit aging individuals – sexagenarians through centenarians. Clin Chem 1992;38:1167–85.10.1093/clinchem/38.6.1167Search in Google Scholar

14. NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators, Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, Blair D, Foster D, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1283–97.10.1056/NEJMoa0810625Search in Google Scholar PubMed

15. Karon BS, Boyd JC, Klee GG. Glucose meter performance criteria for tight glycemic control estimated by simulation modeling. Clin Chem 2010;56:1091–7.10.1373/clinchem.2010.145367Search in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Mitsios JV, Ashby LA, Haverstick DM, Bruns DE, Scott MG. Analytical evaluation of a new glucose meter system in 15 different critical care settings. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013;7:1282–7.10.1177/193229681300700518Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

17. Dietzen DJ, Wilhite TR, Rasmussen M, Sheffield M. Point-of-care glucose analysis in neonates using modified quinoprotein glucose dehydrogenase. Diabetes Technol 2013;15:923–8.10.1089/dia.2013.0160Search in Google Scholar PubMed

18. Lockyer MG, Fu K, Edwards RM, Collymore L, Thomas J, Hill T, et al. Evaluation of the Nova StatStrip glucometer in a pediatric hospital setting. Clin Biochem 2014;47:840–3.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.01.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Lv H, Zhang G, Kang X, Yuan H, Lv Y, Wang W, et al. Factors interfering with the accuracy of five blood glucose meters used in Chinese hospitals. J Clin Lab Anal 2013;27:354–66.10.1002/jcla.21611Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

20. Lindquist KA, Chow K, West A, Pyle L, Isbell TS, Cree-Green M, et al. The StatStrip glucose monitor is suitable for use during hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamps. Diabetes Technol Therap 2014;16:298–302.10.1089/dia.2013.0288Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

21. Brazg R, Hughes K, Martin P, Coard J, Toffaletti J, McDonnell E, et al. Clinical evaluation of the FreeStyle precision pro system. Clin Chim Acta 2013;421:243–50.10.1016/j.cca.2013.03.021Search in Google Scholar PubMed

22. Neese JW, Duncan P, Bayse D, Robinson M, Cooper T, Stewart C. Development and evaluation of a hexokinase/glucose- 6-phosphate dehydrogenase procedure for use as a national glucose comparison method. HEW Publication No. (CDC) 77-8330. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1976.Search in Google Scholar

23. Poesen K, De Prins M, Van den Berghe G, Van Eldere J, Vanstapel F. Performance of cassette-based analyzers to monitor blood glucose and lactate levels in a surgical intensive care setting. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:1417–27.10.1515/cclm-2012-0848Search in Google Scholar PubMed

24. Landt M. Glyceraldehyde preserves glucose concentrations in whole blood specimens. Clin Chem 2000;46:1144–9.10.1093/clinchem/46.8.1144Search in Google Scholar

25. Wahl HG. How accurately do we measure blood glucose levels in intensive care unit (ICU) patients? Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2009;23:387–400.10.1016/j.bpa.2009.09.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed

26. D’Orazio P, Burnett RW, Fogh-Andersen N, Jacobs E, Kuwa K, Külpmann WR, et al. Approved IFCC recommendation on reporting results for blood glucose: International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Scientific Division, working group on selective electrodes and pointof-care testing (IFCC-SD-WG-SEPOCT). Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:1486–90.10.1515/CCLM.2006.275Search in Google Scholar PubMed

27. NCCLS (currently CLSI). Evaluation of the precision performance of quantitative measurement methods: approved guideline, 2nd ed. NCCLS document EP5-A2/Wayne, PA: NCCLS, 2004.Search in Google Scholar

28. Seeley ES, Bowen R, Faix JD. Rapid blood separation is superior to fluoride for preventing in vitro reductions in measured blood glucose concentration. J Clin Pathol 2009;62:752–3.10.1136/jcp.2008.062547Search in Google Scholar PubMed

29. NCCLS (currently CLSI). Evaluation of the linearity of quantitative measurement procedure: a statistical approach; approved guideline. NCCLS document EP6-A/Wayne, PA: NCCLS, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

30. Sharbel E, Noujaim SE, Horwitz D, Sharma M, Marhoul J. Accuracy requirements for a hypoglycemia detector: an analytical model to evaluate the effects of bias, precision, and rate of glucose change. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2007;1:652–68.10.1177/193229680700100509Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

31. Solnica B, Skupien J, Kusnierz-Cabala B, Slowinska-Solnica K, Witek P, Cempa A. The effect of hematocrit on the results of measurements using glucose meters based on different techniques. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;50:361–5.Search in Google Scholar

32. Tang Z, Louie RF, Lee JH, Lee DM, Miller EE, Kost GJ. Oxygen effects on glucose meter measurements with glucose dehydrogenase- and oxidase-based test strips for point-of-care testing. Crit Care Med 2001;29:1062–70.10.1097/00003246-200105000-00038Search in Google Scholar PubMed

33. Rommel K, Grimmel K, Sperling U. Fasting galactose blood level in adults. Klin Wochenschr 1968;46:1042–3.10.1007/BF01728544Search in Google Scholar PubMed

34. Floré KM, Delanghe JR. Analytical interferences in point-of-care testing glucometers by icodextrin and its metabolites: an overview. Perit Dial Int 2009;29:377–83.10.1177/089686080902900403Search in Google Scholar

35. Levine M, Conry-Cantilena C, Wang Y, Welch RW, Washko PW, Dhariwal KR, et al. Vitamin C pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers: evidence for a recommended dietary allowance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996;93:3704–9.10.1073/pnas.93.8.3704Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

36. Van Herpe T, Mesotten D, Wouters PJ, Herbots J, Voets E, Buyens J, et al. LOGIC-insulin algorithm-guided versus nurse-directed blood glucose control during critical illness. Diabetes Care 2013;36:188–94.10.2337/dc12-0584Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

37. The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA). Chemical pathology quality assurance program. Allowable limits of performance. Programs, analytes and allowable limits of performance. Available from: http://www.rcpaqap.com.au/docs/2014/chempath/ALP.pdf Accessed 12 November, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

38. Clarke WL, Cox D, Gonder-Frederick LA, Carter W, Pohl SL. Evaluating clinical accuracy of systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose. Diabetes Care 1987;10:622–8.10.2337/diacare.10.5.622Search in Google Scholar PubMed

39. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA clears glucose monitoring system for use in hospital critical care units. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm416144.htm. Accessed 11 November, 2014Search in Google Scholar

40. DuBois JA, Lyon ME, Lyon AW, Slingerland RJ, Fokkert M, Roman A, et al. Comparison of 3 models for assessing insulin dosing error when a blood glucose monitoring system is used in various patient populations. Critical and point-of-care testing: real world and emerging applications for improved clinical outcomes – San Diego, USA, 18–20 Sep 2014. Abstract 51. Available from: https://www.aacc.org/˜/media/files/meetings-and-events/resources-from-past-events/conferences/2014/cpoct-abstracts/51dubois.pdf?la=en. Accessed 19 March, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

41. Van Herpe T, De Moor B, Van den Berghe G, Mesotten D. Modeling of effect of glucose sensor errors on insulin dosage and glucose bolus computed by LOGIC-Insulin. Clin Chem 2014;60:1510–8.10.1373/clinchem.2014.227017Search in Google Scholar PubMed

42. Skeie S, Thue G, Nerhus K, Sandberg S. Instruments for self-monitoring of blood glucose: comparisons of testing quality achieved by patients and a technician. Clin Chem 2002;48: 994–1003.10.1093/clinchem/48.7.994Search in Google Scholar

43. Kulkarni A, Saxena M, Price G, O’Leary MJ, Jacques T, Myburgh JA. Analysis of blood glucose measurements using capillary and arterial blood samples in intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med 2005;31:142–5.10.1007/s00134-004-2500-5Search in Google Scholar PubMed

44. Claerhout H, De Prins M, Mesotten D, Van den Berghe G, Mathieu C, Van Eldere J, et al. Performance of strip-based glucose meters for monitoring glucose levels. Abstract 8. Belgian national POCT symposium. Antwerp, 23 October 2014. Acta Clin Belgica 2015;70:S5.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2014-12-30
Accepted: 2015-5-28
Published Online: 2015-7-2
Published in Print: 2016-1-1

©2016 by De Gruyter

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Building a bridge to safe diagnosis in health care. The role of the clinical laboratory
  4. Capillary electrophoresis for the screening and diagnosis of inherited hemoglobin disorders. Ready for prime time?
  5. Reviews
  6. Hyperuricemia as risk factor for coronary heart disease incidence and mortality in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  7. Towards biomarker-based tests that can facilitate decisions about prevention and management of preeclampsia in low-resource settings
  8. Mini Review
  9. Clinical relevance of sST2 in cardiac diseases
  10. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  11. Preservation of urine free catecholamines and their free O-methylated metabolites with citric acid as an alternative to hydrochloric acid for LC-MS/MS-based analyses
  12. Performance characteristics of the VIDAS® 25-OH Vitamin D Total assay – comparison with four immunoassays and two liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry methods in a multicentric study
  13. Differentiation of acute pyelonephritis from other febrile states in children using urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (uNGAL)
  14. Early postoperative C-terminal agrin fragment (CAF) serum levels predict graft loss and proteinuria in renal transplant recipients
  15. Homocitrulline: a new marker for differentiating acute from chronic renal failure
  16. Hematology and Coagulation
  17. Development of hemoglobin typing control materials for laboratory investigation of thalassemia and hemoglobinopathies
  18. Comparison of capillary electrophoresis and high performance liquid chromatography for detection and quantification of hemoglobin New York
  19. Prevalence of hemostatic alterations in patients with recurrent spontaneous subconjunctival hemorrhage
  20. Reference Values and Biological Variations
  21. Reference intervals for 24 laboratory parameters determined in 24-hour urine collections
  22. First trimester PAPP-A2, PAPP-A and hCGβ in small-for-gestational-age pregnancies
  23. Cancer Diagnostics
  24. Clinical utility of one versus two faecal immunochemical test samples in the detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia in symptomatic patients
  25. Cardiovascular Diseases
  26. Time from symptom onset influences high-sensitivity troponin T diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction
  27. Prognostic significance of serum albumin level changes in acute ischemic stroke: the role of biological and analytical variation
  28. Correlates of serum hepcidin levels and its association with cardiovascular disease in an elderly general population
  29. Infectious Diseases
  30. Usefulness of several biomarkers in the management of septic patients: C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, presepsin and mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin
  31. Diabetes
  32. Performance of strip-based glucose meters and cassette-based blood gas analyzer for monitoring glucose levels in a surgical intensive care setting
  33. Accuracy and precision assessment of a new blood glucose monitoring system
  34. Acknowledgment
  35. Acknowledgment
  36. Letter to the Editors
  37. Glypican-1 as a highly sensitive and specific pancreatic cancer biomarker
  38. Platelet microRNAs are not modulated by systemic heparin in acute coronary syndromes
  39. Concomitant appearance of two false positive peaks with a true monoclonal one in a patient with plasma cell myeloma
  40. Anti-streptavidin interferences in Roche thyroid immunoassays: a case report
  41. Evaluation of the new Methotrexate CMIA assay on the Architect i2000SR
  42. Liposomal interference on Sysmex XN-series body fluid mode
  43. Development of an immunomagnetic beads-based test and its application in influenza surveillance
Downloaded on 21.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2014-1289/html
Scroll to top button