Reproductive biomedicine online · 2023
Beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin point of care testing for the management of pregnancy of unknown location.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kyriacou Christopher, Kapur Shikha, Jeyapala Sobanakumari, Parker Nina, Yang Wei, Pikovsky Margaret, Bobdiwala Shabnam, Barcroft Jennifer, Maheetharan Shanuja, Sur Shyamaly, Stalder Catriona, Gould Deborah, Syed Shabana, Tan Tricia, Bourne Tom
Аннотация
RESEARCH QUESTION: Does a commercially available quantitative beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin (BHCG) point of care testing (POCT) device improve workflow management in early pregnancy by performing comparably to gold standard laboratory methods, and is the performance of a validated pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) triage strategy maintained using POCT BHCG results?
DESIGN: Women classified with a PUL between 2018 and 2021 at three early pregnancy units were included. The linear relationship of untreated whole-blood POCT and serum laboratory BHCG values was defined using coefficients and regression. Paired serial BHCG values were then incorporated into the validated M6 multinomial logistic regression model to stratify the PUL as at high risk or at low risk of clinical complications. The sensitivity and negative predictive value were assessed. The timings required for equivocal POCT and laboratory care pathways were compared.
RESULTS: A total of 462 PUL were included. The discrepancy between 571 laboratory and POCT BHCG values was -5.2% (-6.2 IU/l), with a correlation coefficient of 0.96. The 133 PUL with paired 0 and 48 h BHCG values were compared using the M6 model. The sensitivity for high-risk outcomes (96.2%) and negative predictive values (98.5%) was excellent for both. Sample receipt and laboratory processing took 135 min (421 timings), compared with 12 min (91 timings) when using POCT (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: POCT BHCG values correlated well with laboratory testing measurements. The M6 model retained its performance when using POCT BHCG values. Using the model with POCT may improve workflow and patient care without compromising on effective PUL triage.
DESIGN: Women classified with a PUL between 2018 and 2021 at three early pregnancy units were included. The linear relationship of untreated whole-blood POCT and serum laboratory BHCG values was defined using coefficients and regression. Paired serial BHCG values were then incorporated into the validated M6 multinomial logistic regression model to stratify the PUL as at high risk or at low risk of clinical complications. The sensitivity and negative predictive value were assessed. The timings required for equivocal POCT and laboratory care pathways were compared.
RESULTS: A total of 462 PUL were included. The discrepancy between 571 laboratory and POCT BHCG values was -5.2% (-6.2 IU/l), with a correlation coefficient of 0.96. The 133 PUL with paired 0 and 48 h BHCG values were compared using the M6 model. The sensitivity for high-risk outcomes (96.2%) and negative predictive values (98.5%) was excellent for both. Sample receipt and laboratory processing took 135 min (421 timings), compared with 12 min (91 timings) when using POCT (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: POCT BHCG values correlated well with laboratory testing measurements. The M6 model retained its performance when using POCT BHCG values. Using the model with POCT may improve workflow and patient care without compromising on effective PUL triage.