Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 1;42(4):467-472.
doi: 10.3343/alm.2022.42.4.467.

Performance Evaluation of the i-SmartCare 10 Analyzer and Method Comparison of Six Point-of-Care Blood Gas Analyzers

Affiliations

Performance Evaluation of the i-SmartCare 10 Analyzer and Method Comparison of Six Point-of-Care Blood Gas Analyzers

Sang-Mi Kim et al. Ann Lab Med. .

Abstract

Blood gas, electrolyte, glucose, and lactate level measurement have an immediate and critical impact on patient care. We evaluated the performance of i-SmartCare 10 (i-SENS Inc., Seoul, Korea) and conducted a method comparison study of five point-of-care (POC) analyzers with i-SmartCare 10 as the comparator, according to the CLSI guidelines. Ten analytes (pH, pCO2, pO2, Na+, K+, Cl-, iCa2+, glucose, lactate, and Hct) were tested on six analyzers: i-SmartCare 10, ABL90 FLEX PLUS (Radiometer Medical ApS, Copenhagen, Denmark), i-Stat (Abbott Point of Care Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA), RapidLab 1265 (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., Tarrytown, NY, USA), Stat Profile pHOx Ultra (Nova Biomedical, Waltham, MA, USA), and Gem Premier 5000 (Instrumentation Laboratory, Bedford, MA, USA). The total imprecision and linearity (r2>0.99) were excellent, except for a few analytes that narrowly escaped the preset criteria. Interference was noted for Na+ in the presence of a high K+ level and for iCa2+ in the presence of high K+ and Mg2+ levels. Forty of 48 items demonstrated either a proportional or systematic difference in regression analysis; the relative mean difference (%) of 14/48 items escaped the allowable total error in the difference plot analysis. i-SmartCare 10 shows acceptable performance, and using a single POC blood gas analyzer is recommended for monitoring.

Keywords: Analytical performance evaluation; Blood gas analyzer; Method comparison; Point-of-care; i-SmartCare 10.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Passing–Bablok regression (A) and Bland–Altman difference (B) plots of i-SmartCare 10 (test analyzer) and Gem Premier 5000 (comparator) for hematocrit. In the Passing–Bablok regression plot (A), the solid and dashed lines represent the regression line and its 95% confidence interval, respectively. The dotted line represents the identity line (y=x). In the Bland–Altman difference plot (B), the y-axis represents the relative mean difference (%) of results obtained with the test analyzer and comparator, and the x-axis represents their average value. The solid and dot-dashed line represent the relative mean difference (%) and its 95% CI, respectively. The dashed and dotted line represent the limit of agreement (±1.96 SD of the differences) and y=0, respectively.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Fermann GJ, Suyama J. Point of care testing in the emergency department. J Emerg Med. 2002;22:393–404. doi: 10.1016/S0736-4679(02)00429-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Price CP. Point of care testing. BMJ. 2001;322:1285–8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7297.1285. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. van Heyningen C, Watson ID, Morrice AE. Point-of-care testing outcomes in an emergency department. Clin Chem. 1999;45:437–8. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/45.3.437a. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Weykamp C. HbA1c: A review of analytical and clinical aspects. Ann Lab Med. 2013;33:393–400. doi: 10.3343/alm.2013.33.6.393. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. De Koninck AS, De Decker K, Van Bocxlaer J, Meeus P, Van Hoovels L. Analytical performance evaluation of four cartridge-type blood gas analyzers. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2012;50:1083–91. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2011-0685. - DOI - PubMed