Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quelle place pour la biologie délocalisée aux urgences ?

What place for point of care technology in emergency room?

  • Mise au Point / Update
  • Published:
Annales françaises de médecine d'urgence

Résumé

La biologie délocalisée, dénommée également Point of Care Testing (POCT), est une solution miniaturisée de mesure de paramètres biologiques réduisant à son strict minimum la phase pré-analytique. Elle autorise des mesures de paramètres sanguins directement au chevet du patient, pour un résultat au plus proche du processus décisionnel. Son intérêt potentiel en médecine d’urgence est de contribuer à améliorer le temps de passage en réduisant le délai de rendu des résultats. La preuve de ce concept n’est cependant pas parfaitement apportée par la littérature, alors même que les solutions technologiques actuelles permettent d’envisager la réalisation de la majorité des paramètres biologiques d’urgence en POCT. Dans cette mise au point, à travers la littérature scientifique, nous abordons l’état des lieux, la place et les perspectives de la biologie délocalisée dans les services d’urgence intrahospitaliers.

Abstract

The point of care testing (POCT) is a miniaturized solution for the measurement of biological parameters, shortening the pre-analytical phase. It allows the dosage of biological parameters directly at the bedside close to the decision process. Its potential added-value in emergency medicine is to contribute in improving the length of stay by reducing the time to result. However, the proof of concept has not been completely reported in the literature, even though actual devices allow considering the measurement of the majority of emergency biological parameters through POCT. In this review, cruising the scientific literature, we discuss the state of the art, place and perspectives of POCT in emergency departments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Références

  1. Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (2015) L’AP-HP engage une stratégie globale d’amélioration des urgences APHP. http://www.aphp.fr/contenu/lap-hp-engage-une-strategie-globaledamelioration- des-urgences (Dernier accès le 15 novembre 2016)

  2. Guttmann A, Schull MJ, Vermeulen MJ, Stukel TA (2011) Association between waiting times and short term mortality and hospital admission after departure from emergency department: population based cohort study from Ontario, Canada. BMJ 342: d2983

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Casalino E, Bernot B, Bouchaud O, et al (2012) Twelve Months of Routine HIV Screening in 6 Emergency Departments in the Paris Area: Results from the ANRS URDEP study. PLoS ONE 7:e46437

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Bingisser R, Cairns C, Christ M, et al (2012) Cardiac troponin: a critical review of the case for point-of-care testing in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 30:1639–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Soremekun OA, Datner EM, Banh S, et al (2013) Utility of point-of-care testing in ED triage. Am J Emerg Med 31:291–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al (2016) Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 315:762–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Freund Y, Delerme S, Goulet H, et al (2012) Serum lactate and procalcitonin measurements in emergency room for the diagnosis and risk-stratification of patients with suspected infection. Biomarker 17:590–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kutz A, Hausfater P, Oppert M, et al (2016) Comparison between B·R·A·H·M·S PCT direct, a new sensitive point-of-care testing device for rapid quantification of procalcitonin in emergency department patients and established reference methods - a prospective multinational trial. Clin Chem Lab Med 54:577–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Asha SE, Chan AC, Walter E, et al (2013) Impact from point-of-care devices on emergency department patient processing times compared with central laboratory testing of blood samples: a randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Emerg Med J 31:714–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Di Somma S, Zampini G, Vetrone F, et al (2014) Opinion paper on utility of point-of-care biomarkers in the emergency department pathways decision making. Clin Chem Lab Med 52:1401–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jang JY, Shin SD, Lee EJ, et al (2013) Use of a comprehensive metabolic panel point-of-care test to reduce length of stay in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med 61:145–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mogensen CB, Borch A, Brandslund I (2011) Point of care technology or standard laboratory service in an emergency department: is there a difference in time to action? A randomised trial. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 19:49

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Rooney KD, Schilling UM (2014) Point-of-care testing in the overcrowded emergency department–can it make a difference? Crit Care 18:692

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Aldous SJ, Richards MA, Cullen L, et al (2012) A new improved accelerated diagnostic protocol safely identifies low-risk patients with chest pain in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 19:510–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cullen L, Parsonage WA, Greenslade J, et al (2012) Comparison of early biomarker strategies with the Heart Foundation of Australia/Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand guidelines for risk stratification of emergency department patients with chest pain. Emerg Med Australas 24:595–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Diercks DB, Peacock WF, Hollander JE, et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of a point-of-care troponin I assay for acute myocardial infarction within 3 hours after presentation in early presenters to the emergency department with chest pain. Am Heart J 163:74–80.e4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fitzgerald P, Goodacre SW, Cross E, Dixon S (2011) Costeffectiveness of point-of-care biomarker assessment for suspected myocardial infarction: the randomized assessment of treatment using panel assay of cardiac markers (RATPAC) trial. Acad Emerg Med 18:488–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Goodacre SW, Bradburn M, Cross E, et al (2011) The Randomised assessment of treatment using panel assay of cardiac Mmarkers (RATPAC) trial: a randomised controlled trial of point-of-care cardiac markers in the emergency department. Heart 97:190–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Loten C, Attia J, Hullick C, et al (2010) Point of care troponin decreases time in the emergency department for patients with possible acute coronary syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. Emerg Med J 27:194–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nørgaard B, Mogensen CB (2012) Blood sample tube transporting system versus point of care technology in an emergency department; effect on time from collection to reporting? A randomised trial. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 20:71

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Sen B, Kesteven P, Avery P (2014) Comparison of D-dimer point of care test (POCT) against current laboratory test in patients with suspected venous thromboembolism (VTE) presenting to the emergency department (ED). J Clin Pathol 67:437–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) (2016) 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 37:267–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kemper D, Semjonow V, de Theije F, et al (2016) Analytical evaluation of a new point of care system for measuring cardiac troponin I. Clin Biochem http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.11.011 [in press]

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service des urgences, hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, F-75013, Paris, France

    P. Hausfater, P. Canavaggio & D. Pariente

  2. Sorbonne-universités UPMC Univ Paris06, GRC-14 Biosfast, F-75006, Paris, France

    P. Hausfater

  3. Fédération de biochimie, hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, F-75013, Paris, France

    N. Oueidat

Authors
  1. P. Hausfater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Canavaggio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Pariente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. Oueidat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Hausfater.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hausfater, P., Canavaggio, P., Pariente, D. et al. Quelle place pour la biologie délocalisée aux urgences ?. Ann. Fr. Med. Urgence 6, 410–414 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13341-016-0691-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13341-016-0691-3

Mots clés

Keywords

Search

Navigation