Point of care haemolysis detection in blood samples that may be deemed unfit for laboratory analysis

Health Technology Wales
Record ID 32018001026
English
Authors' objectives: HTW undertook an evidence review to address the following question: is point-of-care haemolysis detection in secondary care clinically and cost effective in comparison to haemolysis detection in central laboratories?
Authors' results and conclusions: The evidence identified showed that the Helge haemolysis point-of-care testing device (using the s-test only) has the potential to detect haemolysis with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 99%, at a haemoglobin concentration cut-off of 0.5 g/L (50 mg/dL), and a sensitivity of 84.8% and specificity of 99.9%, at a haemoglobin concentration cut-off of 1 g/L (100 mg/dL). One unpublished conference poster showed that that the proportion of laboratory-rejected samples would be reduced in those samples tested using the Helge v-test compared to those not pre-tested. The cost-benefit analysis suggests that point-of-care haemolysis testing is associated with a net cost reduction. The range of sensitivity analyses highlight prevalence and the cost of a delayed resampling as highly impactful. Given the uncertainty surrounding the highly influential figures, the conclusion should be carefully and cautiously considered. The HTW Assessment Group concluded that there is currently insufficient evidence on point-of-care haemolysis detection to inform the production of Guidance at this time. Therefore, this topic will not progress to Appraisal Panel and will not receive HTW Guidance recommendations.
Authors' methods: The Evidence Appraisal Report is based on a literature search (strategy available on request) for published clinical and economic evidence on the health technology of interest. It is not a full systematic review but aims to identify the best available evidence on the health technology of interest. Researchers critically evaluate and synthesise this evidence. We include the following clinical evidence in order of priority: systematic reviews; randomised trials; non-randomised trials. We only include evidence for “lower priority” evidence where outcomes are not reported by a “higher priority” source. We also search for economic evaluations or original research that can form the basis of an assessment of costs/cost comparison. We carry out various levels of economic evaluation, according to the evidence that is available to inform this.
Details
Project Status: Completed
Year Published: 2020
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Rapid Review
Country: Wales, United Kingdom
MeSH Terms
  • Hemolysis
  • Point-of-Care Testing
  • Hematologic Tests
  • Blood Specimen Collection
  • Quality Assurance, Health Care
Keywords
  • Point-of-care test
  • POCT
  • Haemolysis
  • Hemolysis
  • Secondary care
Contact
Organisation Name: Health Technology Wales
Contact Address: Life Sciences Hub Wales 3 Assembly Square Cardiff CF10 4PL
Contact Name: Susan Myles, PhD
Contact Email: healthtechnology@wales.nhs.uk
Copyright: Health Technology Wales
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.