Evaluation in Volunteers of the VIA V-ABG Automated Bedside Blood Gas, Chemistry, and Hematocrit Monitor

Abstract

Objective. To evaluate the VIA V-ABG (VIA Medical Corp.) point-of-care blood gas and chemistry monitor in healthy human volunteers, with particular emphasis on the measurement of blood gases. Methods. Experimental conditions were varied by intermittently subjecting volunteers to either isocapnic hypercapnia (end-tidal (ET), PETCO2 = 50 ± 2 mmHg, ETPO2 = 130 ± 5 mmHg) or isocapnic hypoxia (PETCO2 = 42 ± 2, PETO2 + 45 ± 2 mmHg) in addition to room air breathing. Measurements by the VIA V-ABG device were compared with paired samples and measurements performed by two ABL Radiometers (505 and 500). Analysis of results includes bias and precision plots and comparison of results with minimal performance criteria as established by CLIA. Results. Nineteen volunteers yielded 222 matched samples. The range of values were 7.32-7.61 for pH, 20.9–51.6 mmHg for PCO2, 27.9–184.5 mmHg for PO2, 134-141 mmol/l for Na, 3.1–4.1 mmol/l for K, and 30.0–50.4% for hematocrit. Bias and precision (± 2 sd) for pH was 0.01 and 0.04, for PCO2 was 0.4 and 4.8, for PO2 was 1.0 and 17.0, for Na was −0.3 and 5.2, for K was 0.1 and 0.2, and for Hct was 2.0 and 5.4. Conclusions. Over the range of blood gas values assessed, blood gas measurements by the VIA V-ABG device were clinically acceptable and met minimal performance criteria utilizing current Medicare CLIA proficiency standards. Performance criteria were also met by the VIA V-ABG device for Na, K, and Hct measurements but the range of values was too narrow to allow characterization of clinical acceptability. The VIA V-ABG device appears to perform well compared with the results which have been published for other point-of-care devices. Comparison between different studies investigating point-of-care devices is difficult due to several factors (range of values measured, comparison device, population studied, etc.). Some of these instruments, including the VIA V-ABG device, may serve quite well as point-of-care devices to perform certain tests at the bedside. Whether or not any of these devices can substitute for traditional laboratory blood gas and chemistry measurements remains an issue that is not adequately studied.