Search

Background: Lower limb peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with poor outcomes including ulceration, gangrene, amputations, and mortality. Clinicians therefore routinely perform point-of-care tests in high-risk populations to identify PAD and subsequently implement cardiovascular management and appropriate interventions. Pulse oximetry has been suggested as a useful adjunct test for identifying PAD., Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of pulse oximetry in the lower limb for identifying PAD., Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched up until January 10, 2023, to identify studies of sensitivity and specificity of pulse oximetry that used criterion standard diagnostic imaging as a reference standard. Two authors screened articles for inclusion and appraised quality of included studies using the Quality Appraisal for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, version 2., Results: A total of 6371 records were screened, and 4 were included. The included studies had a total of 471 participants, with an age range of 41 to 80.6 years. All studies were cross-sectional and conducted in hospital settings. Sensitivity values for pulse oximetry compared with diagnostic imaging in identifying PAD ranged from 44% to 76%, and specificity values ranged from 85% to 96%. There was no consensus regarding measurement techniques and diagnostic thresholds for pulse oximetry, which precluded meta-analysis., Conclusions: There is currently inadequate evidence to support the use of pulse oximetry for identifying PAD. Current evidence suggests that pulse oximetry has low levels of sensitivity and is therefore likely to miss PAD when it is present., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We evaluated the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and Snibe SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG spike chemiluminescent immunoassays and compared them to existing Roche/Abbott nucleocapsid and Abbott IgM spike assays., Methods: We enrolled 184 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive samples and 215 controls (172 pre-pandemic, and 43 cross-reactivity) to evaluate the Roche spike antibody (anti-SARS-CoV-2-S) assay. For the Snibe evaluation, we included 119 RT-PCR positive samples and 249 controls (200 pre-pandemice, 49 cross-reactivity). 98 cases had been tested on three spike assays (Roche total antibody, Snibe IgG and Abbott IgM)., Results: The Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2-S assay had a CV of 0.5% (0.82U/mL) and 2.3% (8.72U/mL) and was linear from 1.16 to 240U/mL. The Snibe assay was linear from 6.43 to 77.7AU/mL, CV of 5.5% (0.43AU/mL) and 8.8% (0.18AU/mL). The Snibe spike assay was significantly more sensitive than the Abbott IgG assay at 0-6 days POS (35.2% vs 3.6%, mean difference 29.6%, 95% CI 17.5 to 41.8, p < 0.0001). Optimized LORs significantly improved the sensitivity of the Roche spike (48.1%-56.7%) and both nucleocapsid assays (Roche 43.3%-65.5%, Abbott 3.6%-18.5%) in early disease., Conclusion: Although both spike assays showed higher sensitivity than their nucleocapsid counterparts, lower, optimized LORs provided the most significant improvements to sensitivity., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Introduction: We evaluated the Roche Elecsys IL6 assay on the Cobas immunoassay analyser., Method: Serum IL6 of 144 controls were compared to 52 samples from patients with COVID-like respiratory symptoms (17 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive); 25 of these were from the intensive care unit (ICU). We compared the IL6 levels to C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) levels in all cases., Results: The IL6 assay had coefficient-of-variation (CV) of 2.3 % (34.1 pg/mL) and 2.5 % (222.5 pg/mL), a limit of quantitation <1.6 pg/mL, and was linear from 1.6 to 4948 pg/mL. There was a significant difference in IL6 values between patients with COVID-like respiratory symptoms versus controls (p < 0.001). ROC analysis showed that IL6 > 6.4 pg/mL identified symptomatic cases (AUC 0.94, sensitivity 88.2 %, specificity 97.2 %). There was a significant difference between the IL6 of symptomatic ICU/non-ICU cases (median IL6 228 vs 11 pg/mL, p < 0.0001); ROC analysis showed IL6 > 75 pg/mL (sensitivity 76.0 %, specificity 88.9 %) was superior to CRP and PCT in predicting ICU admission (AUC: IL6 0.83, CRP 0.71, PCT 0.82)., Conclusion: The performance of Elecsys IL6 assay is in keeping with the manufacturer's claims. IL6 > 6.4 pg/mL differentiates healthy from suspected COVID-19 cases and appears to be raised earlier than the other inflammatory markers in some cases. IL6 > 75 pg/mL was a good predictor of ICU admission., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)