Comparison of the Lactate Pro and Analox GM7 Blood Lactate Analysers

The influence of blood lactate sample site on exercise prescription

The aims of this study were first to determine the level of agreement between the fingertip and earlobe for the measurement of blood lactate, and second, to examine whether these sample sites may be used interchangeably when distinguishing lactate parameters routinely used in the physiological assessment and exercise prescription. Twenty healthy men performed an incremental cycle ergometry step test. Capillary blood samples were taken simultaneously at the end of each increment from the earlobe and the fingertip to determine blood lactate concentration. The power output and the heart rate at different lactate parameters (LT, LT1, 2, and 4 mMol·L(-1)) were calculated from the lactate values. The average bias in blood lactate concentration measured from the fingertip and the earlobe was 9.2% with 95% of measures differing by between -24.9 and 58.7%. There were no significant differences between sample sites (p = 0.201); however, there was a strong positive relationship (R2 = 0.9455). At the different lactate parameters, there were no differences in determining the heart rate (except at 4 mMol·L(-1) [p = 0.028], equating to 2 b·min(-1)) and power output between sample sites. In conclusion, this high level of agreement and negligible differences in prescribing exercise using power output and heart rate from commonly used lactate parameters, determined from the earlobe and the fingertip indicate that these sample sites could be used interchangeably for physiological assessment during cycle ergometry.

A comparison of a portable blood lactate analyser and laboratory plasma analysis of blood samples from exercised horses

Quick, simple methods for blood lactate analysis could be helpful in evaluating xercise response in the field, but methods validated for analysis of blood collected after high intensity exercise in horses are scarce. The aim of the present study was to compare the results obtained using a commercial, portable blood lactate analyser with those from laboratory plasma analysis of blood samples from horses performing intensive exercise. Venous blood samples were collected from 220 horses within 5 min of performing exercise at a mean peak heart rate of 222 ±9 beats/min. The samples were kept chilled and analysed using portable analyser within 10 min of collection. Samples were also centrifuged and the plasma frozen (-20 °C) until analysed using an enzymatic and spectrophotometric laboratory lactate analysis. There was a significant (P<0.05) correlation (R=0.94) between the methods at portable analyser values <12.0 mmol/l, but at higher values there was no correlation. There was a significant effect of method (P<0.0001) and portable analyser values were 21% lower than plasma lactate concentrations in the range 2.0-12.0 mmol/l. It is concluded that the portable analysis correlated well to a laboratory plasma analysis at portable analyser values <12.0 mmol/l and that the portable analyser appears to be a safe method for lactate analysis during training conditions, when very high lactate concentrations are not expected. However, users should be aware that the results underestimate the corresponding plasma values by approximately 20%.

Evaluation of three portable blood lactate analysers: Lactate Pro, Lactate Scout and Lactate Plus

Three portable blood lactate analysers, Lactate Pro (LP), Lactate Scout (LS) and Lactate Plus (L(+)), were evaluated. Analyser reliability and accuracy was assessed. For reliability, intra- and inter-analyser comparisons demonstrated that the LP (intra-TE = 0.5 mM, inter-TE = 0.4 mM) and L(+) (intra-TE = 0.4, inter-TE = 0.4 mM) displayed greater overall reliability than the LS (intra-TE = 1.0, inter-TE = 0.8 mM). At BLa < 4.0 mM, the LP (intra-TE = 0.1 mM) demonstrated greater reliability than the LS (intra-TE = 0.5 mM) and L(+) (intra-TE = 0.4 mM). At BLa > 8.0 mM, the LP (intra-TE = 0.5 mM, inter-TE = 0.4 mM) and L(+) (intra- and inter-TE = 0.4 mM) displayed greater reliability than the LS (intra-TE = 1.1 mM, inter-TE = 0.9 mM). For accuracy, the L(+) (SEE = 0.6 mM) compared more favourably to the LP than the LS (SEE = 1.1 mM). At BLa approximately 1.0-18.0 mM, the LS produced values that were up to 0.9 mM higher than the LP; the L(+) produced BLa that were within +/-0.1 mM. All portable analysers tended to under-read the ABL 700 analyser. The suitability of the LP and L(+) as accurate analysers is supported by strong correlations (r = 0.91 and r = 0.94) and limits of agreement <or=2.1 mM. This study showed that the LP and L(+), compared well to each other, displayed good reliability and accuracy when compared to a laboratory-based analyser. Although the LS also displayed relatively good reliability, it was not as reliable or accurate as the LP or L(+).