RESUMO
IntroducciónLa guía clínica para el manejo de la sepsis recomienda usar muestras de sangre arterial para el control glucémico. Un estudio multicéntrico en 86 unidades de cuidados intensivos españolas reveló que el 85,4% de estas utilizaban punción capilar.ObjetivoAnalizar la fiabilidad de la glucemia comparando diferentes muestras sanguíneas (arterial, venosa, capilar) e instrumentos (glucómetros, gasómetros, laboratorio central). Secundariamente, estimar el efecto de variables confusoras y el rendimiento de los instrumentos de medición determinados por las diferentes normas de calidad.MetodologíaRevisión sistemática y metanálisis con búsqueda en las bases de datos PubMed, CINAHL y Embase en septiembre-2021 y septiembre-2022, sin límites temporales ni idiomáticos. Fuentes de literatura gris: DART-Europe, OpenGrey y Google Académico. Resultados resumidos mediante síntesis cualitativa (descripción de resultados, características de los estudios) y cuantitativa (metanálisis para evaluar la diferencia de medias estandarizadas). Calidad metodológica de artículos evaluada con Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Protocolo: https://osf.io/ DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/T8KYP.ResultadosSe incluyeron un total de 32 artículos y 5.451 pacientes. No se obtuvieron discrepancias entre muestras arteriales con glucómetro vs. laboratorio (sesgo [IC95%]: 0,01 [−0,12 a 0,14] mg/dL). En cambio, muestras arteriales con gasómetro sí sobreestimaron de forma significativa (sesgo [IC95%]: 0,12 [0,01 a 0,24] mg/dL). La misma tendencia presentan capilares con glucómetro, aunque no de forma significativa (sesgo [IC95%]: 0,07 [−0,02 a 0,15] mg/dL). Hay discrepancia entre los estudios sobre el efecto del hematocrito y el equilibrio ácido-base. El mayor consenso se da en la poca concordancia del glucómetro con muestras capilares vs. laboratorio en presencia de shock y soporte vasopresor, situación de fallo renal o durante el tratamiento con vitamina C.Conclusiones... (AU)
IntroductionThe clinical guideline for the management of sepsis recommends using arterial blood samples for glycaemic control. A multicentre study in 86 Spanish intensive care units revealed that 85.4% of these used capillary puncture.ObjectiveTo analyse the reliability of glycaemia by comparing different blood samples (arterial, venous, capillary) and instruments (glucometers, gasometers, central laboratory). Secondarily, to estimate the effect of confounding variables and the performance of measuring instruments as determined by different quality standards.MethodologySystematic review and meta-analysis with search in PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases in September-2021 and September-2022, with no time or language limits. Grey literature sources: DART-Europe, OpenGrey and Google Scholar. Results summarised by qualitative (description of results, study characteristics) and quantitative (meta-analysis to assess standardised mean difference) synthesis. Methodological quality of articles assessed with Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Protocol: https://osf.io/ DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/T8KYP.ResultsA total of 32 articles and 5451 patients were included. No discrepancies were obtained between arterial glucometer vs. laboratory samples (bias [95%CI]: 0.01 [−0.12 to 0.14] mg/dL). In contrast, arterial samples with a gasometer did significantly overestimate (bias [95%CI]: 0.12 [0.01 to 0.24] mg/dL). The same trend is seen in capillaries with a glucometer, although not significantly (bias [95%CI]: 0.07 [−0.02 to 0.15] mg/dL). There is discrepancy between studies on the effect of haematocrit and acid-base balance. The greatest consensus is on the poor agreement of glucometer with capillary vs. laboratory samples in the presence of shock and vasopressor support, renal failure or during vitamin C treatment.Conclusions... (AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Adolescente , Adulto Jovem , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , /métodos , /estatística & dados numéricos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Estado Terminal , Confiabilidade dos Dados , EspanhaRESUMO
IntroducciónLa guía clínica para el manejo de la sepsis recomienda usar muestras de sangre arterial para el control glucémico. Un estudio multicéntrico en 86 unidades de cuidados intensivos españolas reveló que el 85,4% de estas utilizaban punción capilar.ObjetivoAnalizar la fiabilidad de la glucemia comparando diferentes muestras sanguíneas (arterial, venosa, capilar) e instrumentos (glucómetros, gasómetros, laboratorio central). Secundariamente, estimar el efecto de variables confusoras y el rendimiento de los instrumentos de medición determinados por las diferentes normas de calidad.MetodologíaRevisión sistemática y metanálisis con búsqueda en las bases de datos PubMed, CINAHL y Embase en septiembre-2021 y septiembre-2022, sin límites temporales ni idiomáticos. Fuentes de literatura gris: DART-Europe, OpenGrey y Google Académico. Resultados resumidos mediante síntesis cualitativa (descripción de resultados, características de los estudios) y cuantitativa (metanálisis para evaluar la diferencia de medias estandarizadas). Calidad metodológica de artículos evaluada con Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Protocolo: https://osf.io/ DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/T8KYP.ResultadosSe incluyeron un total de 32 artículos y 5.451 pacientes. No se obtuvieron discrepancias entre muestras arteriales con glucómetro vs. laboratorio (sesgo [IC95%]: 0,01 [−0,12 a 0,14] mg/dL). En cambio, muestras arteriales con gasómetro sí sobreestimaron de forma significativa (sesgo [IC95%]: 0,12 [0,01 a 0,24] mg/dL). La misma tendencia presentan capilares con glucómetro, aunque no de forma significativa (sesgo [IC95%]: 0,07 [−0,02 a 0,15] mg/dL). Hay discrepancia entre los estudios sobre el efecto del hematocrito y el equilibrio ácido-base. El mayor consenso se da en la poca concordancia del glucómetro con muestras capilares vs. laboratorio en presencia de shock y soporte vasopresor, situación de fallo renal o durante el tratamiento con vitamina C.Conclusiones... (AU)
IntroductionThe clinical guideline for the management of sepsis recommends using arterial blood samples for glycaemic control. A multicentre study in 86 Spanish intensive care units revealed that 85.4% of these used capillary puncture.ObjectiveTo analyse the reliability of glycaemia by comparing different blood samples (arterial, venous, capillary) and instruments (glucometers, gasometers, central laboratory). Secondarily, to estimate the effect of confounding variables and the performance of measuring instruments as determined by different quality standards.MethodologySystematic review and meta-analysis with search in PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases in September-2021 and September-2022, with no time or language limits. Grey literature sources: DART-Europe, OpenGrey and Google Scholar. Results summarised by qualitative (description of results, study characteristics) and quantitative (meta-analysis to assess standardised mean difference) synthesis. Methodological quality of articles assessed with Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Protocol: https://osf.io/ DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/T8KYP.ResultsA total of 32 articles and 5451 patients were included. No discrepancies were obtained between arterial glucometer vs. laboratory samples (bias [95%CI]: 0.01 [−0.12 to 0.14] mg/dL). In contrast, arterial samples with a gasometer did significantly overestimate (bias [95%CI]: 0.12 [0.01 to 0.24] mg/dL). The same trend is seen in capillaries with a glucometer, although not significantly (bias [95%CI]: 0.07 [−0.02 to 0.15] mg/dL). There is discrepancy between studies on the effect of haematocrit and acid-base balance. The greatest consensus is on the poor agreement of glucometer with capillary vs. laboratory samples in the presence of shock and vasopressor support, renal failure or during vitamin C treatment.Conclusions... (AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Adolescente , Adulto Jovem , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , /métodos , /estatística & dados numéricos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Estado Terminal , Confiabilidade dos Dados , EspanhaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The clinical guideline for the management of sepsis, recommends using arterial blood samples for glycaemic control. A multicentre study in 86 Spanish intensive care units (ICU) revealed that 85.4% of ICUs used capillary puncture. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the reliability of glycaemia by comparing different blood samples (arterial, venous, capillary) and instruments (glucometers, gasometers, central laboratory). Secondarily, to estimate the effect of confounding variables and the performance of measuring instruments as determined by different quality standards. METHODOLOGY: Systematic review and meta-analysis with search in PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases in September-2021 and September-2022, with no time or language limits. Grey literature sources: DART-Europe, OpenGrey and Google Scholar. Results summarised by qualitative (description of results, study characteristics) and quantitative (meta-analysis to assess standardised mean difference) synthesis. Methodological quality of articles assessed with Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). PROTOCOL: https://osf.io/ DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/T8KYP. RESULTS: A total of 32 articles and 5451 patients were included. No discrepancies were obtained between arterial glucometer vs laboratory samples [bias (95%CI): 0.01 (-0.12 to 0.14) mg/dL]. In contrast, arterial samples with a gasometer did significantly overestimate [bias (95%CI): 0.12 (0.01 to 0.24) mg/dL]. The same trend is seen in capillaries with a glucometer, although not significantly [bias (95%CI): 0.07 (--0.02 to 0.15) mg/dL]. There is discrepancy between studies on the effect of haematocrit and acid-base balance. The greatest consensus is on the poor agreement of glucometer with capillary vs laboratory samples in the presence of shock and vasopressor support, renal failure or during vitamin C treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence to date recommends the use of arterial blood with a blood glucose meter for better reliability of glycaemic analysis and less effect of possible confounding variables, frequently present in the critically ill adult patient.