Disagreement between ion selective electrode direct and indirect sodium measurements: Estimation of the problem in a tertiary referral hospital☆☆☆★★★☆☆☆★★★
Abstract
Purpose
We estimated the proportion of indirect ion selective electrode (ISE) plasma sodium analyses in intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital wide, exhibiting important disagreement with direct ISE results in relation to abnormal plasma protein concentrations.
Materials and Methods
Direct and indirect ISE plasma sodium measurements were performed on 346 clinical specimens selected to reflect low, normal, or high total protein concentrations. Important intermethod disagreement was defined as |4| mmol/L or higher. Results were extrapolated to a 3-month laboratory series of 48 033 indirect ISE assays, including 2877 samples from intensive care.
Results
Intermethod sodium disagreement at |4| mmol/L or higher was predicted for 25% of ICU samples. Almost all (97%) occurred in hypoproteinemic samples where indirect tended to exceed direct ISE estimates. Hospital wide, such disagreement was projected to occur in 8% of samples, of which the majority (70%) were also hypoproteinemic.
Conclusions
Important disagreement between indirect and direct ISE sodium measurements may exist in up to 1 in 4 ICU specimens and 1 in 12 hospital-wide samples. The main problem is indirect ISE overestimation associated with hypoproteinemia, potentially leading to misclassifications of pseudohypernatremia and pseudonormonatremia. We recommend that hospital laboratories consider standardization using direct ISE sodium measurement.
Keywords: Direct, Error, Indirect, Ion selective, Protein, Sodium
To access this article, please choose from the options below
☆ Institution where study performed: Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
☆☆ Source of funding: departmental funds.
★ Competing financial interests: none declared.
★★ Competing nonfinancial interests: none declared
☆☆☆ Authors' contributions: GD devised the initial protocol, collected the data, supervised the assays, performed a preliminary statistical analysis, and wrote the initial manuscript draft. TJM revised the protocol, performed a further statistical analysis, wrote subsequent drafts, and acts as corresponding author. JJP provided final statistical input and analysis and revised later drafts. BV provided intellectual input and reviewed/revised drafts.
★★★ No commercial sponsors contributed to authorship in any way.
PII: S0883-9441(11)00485-0
doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2011.11.003
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
