Search

Background Point-of-care testing for rapid detection of pregnancy in women of reproductive age is common practice in the emergency department. Commercially available rapid human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) immunoassays are validated for use with urine and serum, but not whole blood. Study Objectives We assessed the validity of using whole blood to detect pregnancy using a point-of-care hCG assay by comparing it to a laboratory quantitative serum hCG assay as the criterion standard. Methods A convenience sample of female patients of reproductive age (18–51 years) submitted 5 mL of whole blood, from which two drops were immediately applied to a point-of-care hCG kit, with results recorded at 10 min. The remainder of each whole blood specimen was sent to the hospital laboratory for the criterion-standard quantitative serum hCG assay. The criterion standard for a positive pregnancy test was defined as quantitative serum hCG ≥ 5 mIU/mL. Investigators performing the whole blood test and laboratory technicians performing the quantitative serum assay were blinded to one another’s results. Results There were 633 patients enrolled, with a mean age of 30 years (± 7.7 years); 34% of the patients were pregnant. Overall, the whole blood pregnancy test was 95.8% sensitive (negative predictive value 97.9%), whereas the urine test was 95.3% sensitive (negative predictive value 97.6%); the specificity and positive predictive value of both tests was 100%. Conclusion Using a standard point-of-care qualitative hCG immunoassay kit, whole blood may be used for rapid detection of pregnancy with similar, or greater, accuracy than urine.

The short-term (1 month) and long-term (6 months) safety of combination lidoflazine-propranolol therapy was investigated in an open trial of 15 patients with stable angina of effort. The possible advantages of adding lidoflazine (ti trated to 360 mg daily) to patients having a therapeutic response to propranolol (80-400 mg daily) was also evaluated. Effects on non-invasive indexes of left ventricular function (echocardiography, systolic time intervals, radionuclide ventriculography) and exercise tolerance (treadmill exercise testing) were deter mined. There was no change in mean resting heart rate with the combination therapy, although one patient developed sinus bradycardia at a rate of 44 and had to have his propranolol dose reduced. Electrocardiographic analysis showed significant prolongation of the QTc intervals on lidoflazine-propranolol therapy compared to propranolol alone, with 3 patients having QTc interval prolongation to above .53 seconds, but there was no evidence of increased ar rhythmogenesis with the combination therapy compared to propranolol alone. Left ventricular end-diastolic volume index tended to rise with combination therapy. However, lidoflazine-propranolol therapy did not produce any signifi cant effects on resting ejection fraction determined by M-mode echocardio graphy or by radionuclide ventriculography. Radionuclide ventriculography determined peak exercise ejection fractions were also not significantly changed with combination therapy compared to propranolol alone. There were only small, insignificant improvements in exercise tolerance with the lidoflazine-pro pranolol combination treatment compared to propranolol alone. It is concluded that lidoflazine-propranolol combination therapy is generally safe but has the potential of causing serious adverse effects in certain patients, i.e. those with sick sinus disease, prolonged QTc intervals, and severe baseline left ventricular dysfunction, and that caution must be exercised in its use. Furthermore, it would appear that combination therapy provides only slight, if any, improve ments in exercise tolerance in patients with chronic stable angina having a ther apeutic response to oral propranolol.