Research Note: Comparison of chicken blood chemistry and electrolyte parameters between the portable i-STAT1 clinical analyzer and VetScan VS2 serum biochemistry panel using Hy-Line commercial white-egg laying hens

• Published in: Poultry science Vol. 99; no. 7; pp. 3487 - 3490
• Main Authors: Sauer, Z.C., Taylor, K., Wolc, A., Viall, A., Fulton, J.E., Settar, P., Rubinoff, I., Schaal, T., Sato, Y.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Inc 01.07.2020; Elsevier
• Subjects: Animals; Blood Chemical Analysis - veterinary; blood chemistry; blood gas; blood gases; blood serum; chemistry; chickens; Chickens - blood; cost effectiveness; electrolytes; Electrolytes - blood; Female; glucose; i-STAT1; Immunology, Health and Disease; laying hen; medicine; portable equipment; regression analysis; reptiles; t-test; white egg layer; blood chemistry; i-STAT1; laying hen; blood gas; white egg layer
• ISSN: 0032-5791; 1525-3171; 1525-3171
• DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2020.03.059

The i-STAT1 clinical analyzer has become an increasingly popular tool in clinical production animal medicine as it can provide pen-side results in a cost effective and timely manner when compared to standard benchtop serum biochemistry blood gas and chemistry analyses. This study compares the results of the portable Abbott i-STAT1 analyzer and the Abaxis VetScan VS2 for glucose (Glu, mg/dL), ionized Ca (mmol/L), Na (mmol/L), and K (mmol/L) values. Three genetically distinct commercial varieties (CV) of Hy-Line white-egg laying hens are used in this study (Hy-Line W-36, Hy-Line W-80, and Hy-Line W-80+). Thirty blood samples (n = 10 per CV) were obtained in the production house from the brachial vein and concurrently analyzed by the i-STAT1 portable device. Serum from 22 of these same samples was analyzed via VetScan VS2, a benchtop serum clinical biochemistry analyzer, using VetScan Avian/Reptilian Profile Plus reagent rotors. A paired T-test was used to test for statistical differences in means between the 2 instruments for each of the parameters. Parameters with significant mean differences were then subject to correlation and regression analysis to further evaluate relationships between the results from the 2 methods. Significant differences between means were found for Glu, Na, and K levels. Ca levels were found to be not directly comparable by the 2 analysis instruments. This comparison elucidates the importance of clinical analyzer validations when applying different strategies of diagnostic medicine in poultry.