Background Adoption of point-of-care (POC) platforms has been limited by their high cost and limited menu (e.g., molecular only). Fluxergy has developed a cost-effective multimodal POC platform capable of performing the most common clinical chemistry, immunochemistry, hematology, molecular tests in CLIA-waived settings. This method comparison study describes the performance of the Fluxergy’s feasibility stage basic metabolic panel (BMP) with contrived samples compared to the Siemen’s epoc® Blood Analysis System. Methods Fluxergy Analyzer: The Fluxergy Analyzer is a rapid and cost-effective multimodality platform that can perform lab-quality PCR, clinical chemistry, immunochemistry, and cytometry in a single instrument and if required, in a single cartridge. Fluxergy BMP: Fluxergy BMP rapidly quantifies key electrolytes (K+, Na+, Ca2+, Cl-) and metabolites (glucose, creatinine, and BUN) from whole blood in under five minutes on the Fluxergy Analyzer, utilizing the Fluxergy test cards with screen-printed electrochemical sensor. Feasibility Study: A method comparison study was conducted to assess the performance of the feasibility stage Fluxergy BMP using contrived samples generated by spiking known concentrations of K+, Na+, Ca2+, Cl-, and glucose into buffer solutions. Samples were tested in triplicate with both the Fluxergy BMP and Siemen’s epoc® Blood Analysis System at three different concentrations across the reportable range of the epoc® Blood Analysis System. Results The feasibility stage Fluxergy BMP demonstrated strong correlation across the reportable range for K+, Na+, Ca2+, Cl-, and glucose versus the epoc® Blood Analysis System (Table 1). The error percentage for all samples tested except one glucose sample (9.5 mM) was less than 10%. The coefficient of variance for all samples tested except one Ca2+ sample (0.44 mM) was less than ten percent. Conclusions This feasibility data demonstrates the Fluxergy Analyzer is well-suited to perform rapid and accurate metabolic testing from whole blood samples at the POC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Charrault et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: