Clinical correlation between a point-of-care testing system and laboratory automation for lipid profile

Current lipid screening methods rely on centralized laboratory systems, which may delay clinical decisions. Prior research has shown that laboratory automation provides accurate lipid profiles, but point-of-care systems remain under-evaluated. This gap motivated a study to compare a portable analyzer with a reference method. No prior work had resolved the accuracy of fingerstick samples in lipid testing. Establishing reliable point-of-care systems could expand screening access. The need for rapid, accurate lipid testing is clear in preventive cardiology. This paper's contribution is a direct comparison of two testing approaches. The study addresses a practical need in clinical settings.

The aim was to assess clinical agreement between a point-of-care system and a reference laboratory method for lipid profiling. The specific problem is ensuring accuracy of rapid screening tools. The CardioChek PA analyzer was tested against COBAS reference results. Fingerstick and venous samples were compared for consistency. The motivation is to validate a portable system for field use. This study targets a gap in point-of-care validation data. The focus is on total cholesterol, HDL-C, and triglycerides. The goal is to support clinical screening programs with reliable tools.

A total of 516 patient samples were collected for the study. Venous blood was drawn into serum tubes for COBAS analysis. A second venous sample was collected in lithium heparin tubes for CardioChek PA testing. Fingerstick samples were also tested on the CardioChek PA. Linear regression was used to compare analyte results. Total cholesterol, HDL-C, and triglycerides were the primary metrics. Sample collection followed standard pre-analytic protocols. Statistical analysis focused on correlation coefficients and agreement rates.

The CardioChek PA showed high correlation for HDL-C and triglycerides. Total cholesterol correlation was also strong between both methods. Agreement rates ranged from 94.6% to 97.7% across analytes. Fingerstick and venous samples on the CCPA had excellent agreement. The highest agreement was observed for HDL-C measurements. Triglyceride results were consistently aligned between methods. Total cholesterol showed slightly lower but still strong agreement. These findings suggest the CCPA is reliable for lipid screening.

The CardioChek PA system demonstrated good clinical agreement with the reference method. The authors propose that this system is suitable for lipid screening in clinical settings. The study supports the use of CCPA for point-of-care lipid testing. The pre-analytic phase was identified as a critical step for quality. Fingerstick and venous samples showed comparable results. The authors suggest this system can be used for field-based screening programs. No prior work had resolved the reliability of CCPA for lipid testing. These findings indicate the CCPA is a valid alternative to laboratory methods.