Which point-of-care creatinine analyser for radiology: direct comparison of the i-Stat and StatStrip creatinine methods with different sample types

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Availability of whole blood creatinine estimation for patients scheduled to undergo radiological contrast investigations can provide information to aid patient care by reducing adverse effects and improving departmental efficiencies. METHODS: We performed imprecision studies, different patient sample type comparison in 40 participants, and a limited interference study with dopamine and dobutamine on the i-Stat and StatStrip point-of-care enzymatic analysers with the Beckman DxC800 Jaffe assay. RESULTS: Imprecision results showed that the i-Stat performed better. Patient comparison data indicated that the i-Stat provided better correlation than the StatStrip for all the different sample types with correlation coefficients (r(2)) being 0.995-0.996 and 0.918-0.995, respectively. The i-Stat results had a small positive bias of 6-9% for the three different sample types, which required different reference intervals. The StatStrip method showed greater scatter and overall small negative bias of -6% for the whole blood samples and a 10% positive bias with the plasma samples. Dopamine caused significant positive interference with the i-Stat only while dobutamine caused a small negative bias with the StatStrip method only. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicated there are differences offered by the two systems. The StatStrip requires a very small finger prick capillary sample, calculates estimation of the glomerular filtration rate and has an adjustment option to improve correlation with the local method. The i-Stat offers better analytical imprecision and patient comparison with the laboratory method with the three sample types but showed significant interference from dopamine. A final consideration was the availability of middleware to capture patient results with the i-Stat. Based on all the study data, the i-Stat was recommended.