The Science Journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care

2009 OPEN FORUM Abstracts

A COMPARISON OF THE ROCHE MICROSAMPLER AND THE PORTEX PROVENT SAMPLING SYRINGE, USING THE ROCHE OMNI 6 AVL AND THE ROCHE COBAS B 221 BLOOD GAS SYSTEMS

Richard M. Hoskins; Dept of Resp Care, Presbyterian Hosp of Plano, Plano, TX

In our ICU, ER, NICU, OR’s and General Care areas; Blood Gases, Electrolytes and Co-Oximetry are frequently obtained to determine the current pulmonary and metabolic needs of our patients. Materials: At this time, we utilize the Portex Pro-Vent Dry Lithium Heparin vented syringe. After the purchase of our Roche Cobas b 221 Blood Gas System, we were offered some trial packs of the Roche Microsampler. 75 of the Roche Microsampler were tested in this study; the remainder was used in clinical sampling. The Roche MICROSAMPLER utilizes a 26 gauge needle; while the sampler contains twin glass capillary tubes in a “U” configuration, for a sample volume of approximately 220 μL. These capillary tubes are internally coated with both sodium and lithium heparin, and are contained in a plastic holder that is not designed to be opened by the user. The Portex Pro-Vent syringe can be obtained either as a syringe alone with a 25 gauge needle, or as a kit with a 25 gauge and a 23 gauge needle included. Neither of these products are designed or suitable for aspiration of a sample, such as from a Swan-Ganz Catheter, but are expressly designed to fill using arterial pressure. Methods: 46 Post Cardiac Surgical patients were dual-sampled from a closed-system arterial line (SafeSet, Hospira). The SafeSet uses a standard solution of 1000 units Sodium Heparin to 500 ml 0.9% NaCl. All sampling was per routine sampling times & protocols. Either the Microsampler or the Pro-Vent syringe was used to obtain the first sample, and then the other was used for the immediate second sample. Both samples were analyzed on a matched pair of Roche Omni 6 AVL, or on a paired Roche 6 AVL and the Cobas b 221, when used in the NICU, If enough sample was available, then the samples were ran on the opposite analyzers. Most patients had several sets of samples obtained, at various times, for clinical management. Comments: Only the initial analysis from the institutional approved device (Portex Pro-Vent) was used for patient management. Any analysis of the Roche Microsampler, or split-sample data was collected for study purposes only. Results: There were small statistically insignificant differences between the two sampler systems. pH (r=9932; p<.01), PaCO_2 (r=9904; p<.01), PaO_2 (r=9891; p<.01), COHb (r=9847; p<.01), MetHb (r=9911; p<.01), K+ (r=9804; p<.01) Na (r=9791; p<.01) and ionized Ca (r=9833; p<.01). Sponsored Research - Blood gas syringes were donated as part of purchase of new analyzer. Roche is not aware of this study, nor were there any financial incentives to use these products. No other contributions were made by roche or its representatives, to myself or my facility.

You are here: RCJournal.com » Past OPEN FORUM Abstracts » 2009 Abstracts » A COMPARISON OF THE ROCHE MICROSAMPLER AND THE PORTEX PROVENT SAMPLING SYRINGE, USING THE ROCHE OMNI 6 AVL AND THE ROCHE COBAS B 221 BLOOD GAS SYSTEMS