Ambulatory human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) testing: a verification of two hCG point of care devices
File(s)10.1515_cclm-2023-0703.pdf (469.23 KB)
Published online version
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Objectives
Quantitative human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) measurements are used to manage women classified with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL). Two point of care testing (POCT) devices that quantify hCG are commercially available. We verified the i-STAT 1 (Abbott) and the AQT 90 FLEX (Radiometer) prior to use in PUL triage.
Methods
Tests for precision, external quality assurance (EQA), correlation, hook effect and recovery were undertaken alongside a POCT usability assessment during this prospective multi-center verification.
Results
Coefficients of variation ranged between 4.0 and 5.1 % for the three i-STAT 1 internal quality control (IQC) solutions and between 6.8 and 7.3 % for the two AQT IQC solutions. Symmetric differences in POCT EQA results when compared with laboratory and EQA stock values ranged between 3.2 and 24.5 % for the i-STAT 1 and between 3.3 and 36.9 % for the AQT. Correlation coefficients (i-STAT 1: 0.96, AQT: 0.99) and goodness of fit curves (i-STAT 1: 0.92, AQT: 0.99) were excellent when using suitable whole blood samples. An hCG hook effect was noted with the i-STAT 1 between 572,194 and 799,089 IU/L, lower than the hook effect noted with the AQT, which was between 799,089 and 1,619,309 IU/L. When hematocrit concentration was considered in sample types validated for use with each device, hCG recovery was 108 % with the i-STAT 1 and 98 % with the AQT. The i-STAT 1 scored lower on usability overall (90/130) than the AQT (121/130, p<0.001, Mann-Whitney).
Conclusions
Both hCG POCT devices were verified for use in clinical practice. Practical factors must also be considered when choosing which device to use in each unit.
Quantitative human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) measurements are used to manage women classified with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL). Two point of care testing (POCT) devices that quantify hCG are commercially available. We verified the i-STAT 1 (Abbott) and the AQT 90 FLEX (Radiometer) prior to use in PUL triage.
Methods
Tests for precision, external quality assurance (EQA), correlation, hook effect and recovery were undertaken alongside a POCT usability assessment during this prospective multi-center verification.
Results
Coefficients of variation ranged between 4.0 and 5.1 % for the three i-STAT 1 internal quality control (IQC) solutions and between 6.8 and 7.3 % for the two AQT IQC solutions. Symmetric differences in POCT EQA results when compared with laboratory and EQA stock values ranged between 3.2 and 24.5 % for the i-STAT 1 and between 3.3 and 36.9 % for the AQT. Correlation coefficients (i-STAT 1: 0.96, AQT: 0.99) and goodness of fit curves (i-STAT 1: 0.92, AQT: 0.99) were excellent when using suitable whole blood samples. An hCG hook effect was noted with the i-STAT 1 between 572,194 and 799,089 IU/L, lower than the hook effect noted with the AQT, which was between 799,089 and 1,619,309 IU/L. When hematocrit concentration was considered in sample types validated for use with each device, hCG recovery was 108 % with the i-STAT 1 and 98 % with the AQT. The i-STAT 1 scored lower on usability overall (90/130) than the AQT (121/130, p<0.001, Mann-Whitney).
Conclusions
Both hCG POCT devices were verified for use in clinical practice. Practical factors must also be considered when choosing which device to use in each unit.
Date Acceptance
2023-10-10
Citation
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
ISSN
1434-6621
Publisher
De Gruyter
Journal / Book Title
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
Copyright Statement
Open Access. © 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Subjects
hCG
IMMUNOASSAY
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Medical Laboratory Technology
MODEL
PERFORMANCE
point of care
PREGNANCY
pregnancy of unknown location (PUL)
RISK
Science & Technology
UNKNOWN LOCATION
VALIDATION
Publication Status
Published online
OA Location
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2023-0703
Date Publish Online
2023-10-30