Translator Disclaimer
1 June 2014 COMPARISON OF TWO ANALYZERS TO DETERMINE SELECTED VENOUS BLOOD ANALYTES OF QUAKER PARROTS (MYIOPSITTA MONACHUS)
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Point of care devices can assess electrolyte, blood gas, biochemical, and hematologic values in a critical care setting. Although these devices are commonly used in humans and companion mammals, few studies have assessed their use in avian species. This study compares electrolyte, hemoglobin (Hgb), hematocrit (Hct), acid-base, and venous blood gas parameters between the i-STAT® and IRMA TruPoint® blood gas analysis systems for 35 Quaker parrots. Agreement between the two analyzers and the effect of gender, time lag between sample analysis, and cartridge expiration were evaluated. Male birds had increased Hgb and Hct compared with females, independent of analyzer method. In expired i-STAT cartridges, only glucose significantly increased. Packed cell volume determined by centrifugation was higher than Hct, as calculated by either analyzer. The analyzers had good agreement for total carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, pH, and Hgb, fair agreement for potassium (K), ionized calcium (iCa), venous partial pressure of carbon dioxide, and base excess, and poor agreement for sodium (Na), venous partial pressure of oxygen (PO2), and oxygen saturation (SO2). Values for Na, iCa, PO2, and SO2 were significantly higher on the IRMA than the i-STAT, while K was significantly lower on the IRMA when compared with the i-STAT. The time lag between sample analyses on the i-STAT and IRMA did not be correlate to any analyte changes. Despite these differences, both the i-STAT and the IRMA appear to be acceptable clinical tools in avian critical care, although reference ranges for each analyzer should be created.

American Association of Zoo Veterinarians
Christy L. Rettenmund, J. Jill Heatley, and Karen E. Russell "COMPARISON OF TWO ANALYZERS TO DETERMINE SELECTED VENOUS BLOOD ANALYTES OF QUAKER PARROTS (MYIOPSITTA MONACHUS)," Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 45(2), 256-262, (1 June 2014). https://doi.org/10.1638/2013-0046R3.1
Received: 11 March 2013; Published: 1 June 2014
JOURNAL ARTICLE
7 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top