Comparison of measurements of 18 analytes in canine and feline blood samples using the in‐practice Falcor 350 and the reference KoneLab 30i analysers

Abstract

For 13 of the 18 analytes (creatinine, total proteins, albumin, creatine kinase, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, amylase, glucose, cholesterol, triacylglycerol, phosphate, potassium and urea) in both canine and feline samples, the two instruments produce values that are closely related to each other (excellent correlation) and are sufficiently similar to allow them to be used interchangeably without the need for additional correction factor computations (good agreement). Because of differences in the methodologies, the Falcor results for alkaline phosphatase, total calcium, sodium, lipase and total bilirubin cannot be used interchangeably with those generated by the KoneLab and should be interpreted using reference intervals established from the Falcor analyser.

Comparison of Measurements of 12 Analytes in Equine Blood Samples Using the In-Practice Falcor 350 and the Reference KoneLab 30i Analysers

“…Examination of the data revealed that in 45 of the 60 cases (75%), the Falcor generated tCa values higher than those of the KoneLab. This finding may reflect the different methodologies employed by the two instruments (Cresolphthalein complexone versus Arsenazo III) and is in agreement with the results reported in an identical study in cats and dogs where in 49 of 60 canine (81%) and 39 of 60 feline (65%) cases the Falcor generated tCa values higher than those of the KoneLab [14]. …”

“…The reason for the unacceptable correlation observed for Na + is not readily apparent and may merit further investigation. Similar differences in the correlations between the Falcor and KoneLab instruments for Na + and K + values have also been reported in a recent study which utilised samples from 60 canine (Na + ; r = 0.41, K + ; r = 0.96) and 60 feline (Na + ; r = 0.61, K + ; r = 0.97) clinical cases [14]. …”

“…Reassessment of the correlation between the two instruments after exclusion of the 3-deviated points produced an acceptable correlation ( r s = 0.81) while difference plots analysis revealed good agreement with no outliers. Even so, this inconsistency merits further investigation as similar findings have been reported in a very low number of samples from canine (1 of 60) and feline (3 of 60) cases [14]. …”

Comparison of a full-spectrum multi-analyte clinical analyser with six reference instruments using canine and feline blood samples

“…Therefore, possible matrix interference cannot be ruled out. In addition, the bias of Na + (-12.2-11.6 mmol/l) and K + (-0.6 to 0.6 mmol/l) was significantly larger than those reported when wet-reagent analysers (Na + 1.7-0.2; K + 0.4-0.3; Papasouliotis et al 2008) and point-of-care testing portable analysers (Na + 4.5; K + 0.2; West et al 2014) were used. A previous study indicated that when the photometric measurement range (2.5A) is exceeded, then results may be unpredictably low or even negative (Hubl et al 1994).…”

“…Correlations between AmiShield and reference instruments were determined by Deming regression using EP Evaluator Release 6 (Data Innovations LLC, South Burlington, USA). The value of Pearson's correlation coefficient was either considered excellent (r ≧ 0.92), good (r = 0.80-0.91), fair (r = 0.59-0.79), or poor (r < 0.59), based on previous studies (Papasouliotis et al 2006;Papasouliotis et al 2008). Data were also plotted on Bland-Altman difference plots to evaluate the degree of agreement between AmiShield and the reference instruments.…”