Precision, accuracy, cross reactivity and comparability of serum indices measurement on Abbott Architect c8000, Beckman Coulter AU5800 and Roche Cobas 6000 c501 clinical chemistry analyzers.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to perform verification of serum indices on three clinical chemistry platforms. METHODS: This study was done on three analyzers: Abbott Architect c8000, Beckman Coulter AU5800 (BC) and Roche Cobas 6000 c501. The following analytical specifications were verified: precision (two patient samples), accuracy (sample with the highest concentration of interferent was serially diluted and measured values compared to theoretical values), comparability (120 patients samples) and cross reactivity (samples with increasing concentrations of interferent were divided in two aliquots and remaining interferents were added in each aliquot. Measurements were done before and after adding interferents). RESULTS: Best results for precision were obtained for the H index (0.72%-2.08%). Accuracy for the H index was acceptable for Cobas and BC, while on Architect, deviations in the high concentration range were observed (y=0.02 [0.01-0.07]+1.07 [1.06-1.08]x). All three analyzers showed acceptable results in evaluating accuracy of L index and unacceptable results for I index. The H index was comparable between BC and both, Architect (Cohen's κ [95% CI]=0.795 [0.692-0.898]) and Roche (Cohen's κ [95% CI]=0.825 [0.729-0.922]), while Roche and Architect were not comparable. The I index was not comparable between all analyzer combinations, while the L index was only comparable between Abbott and BC. Cross reactivity analysis mostly showed that serum indices measurement is affected when a combination of interferences is present. CONCLUSIONS: There is heterogeneity between analyzers in the hemolysis, icteria, lipemia (HIL) quality performance. Verification of serum indices in routine work is necessary to establish analytical specifications.

K2-EDTA and K3-EDTA Greiner Tubes for HbA1c Measurement.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether K2-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and K3-EDTA Greiner tubes could be used interchangeably for glycosylated hemoglobin, type A1C (HbA1c) measurement via the Abbott Laboratories ARCHITECT chemiluminescent microparticle HbA1c assay on the ARCHITECT i2000SR immunoanalyzer at our university hospital. MATERIALS: We drew blood from a total of 45 outpatients into plastic Greiner Vacuette tubes, some of which were lined with K2-EDTA and others with K3-EDTA anticoagulant. Data are presented as median and interquartile range values. We used the Wilcoxon test and Passing-Bablok regression for tube comparison. RESULTS: For K2-EDTA tubes median HbA1c concentration was 54 mmol/mol (41 to 71 mmol/mol) and for K3-EDTA tubes 56 mmol/mol (43 to 69 mmol/mol). There was no statistically significant difference between K2-EDTA and K3-EDTA (bias= -1.29 mmol/mol; P = 0.24). Passing-Bablok regression showed that there is no constant and proportional error: y = -0.23 (95% CI[-3.52 to 0.69]) + 1.00( 95% CI[0.98 to 1.06]) x. CONCLUSION: In this study, we provide evidence for the lack of any clinically and statistically significant bias between K2-EDTA and K3-EDTA HbA1c measurements. Thus, Greiner tubes lined with K2-EDTA and those lined with K3-EDTA can safely be used interchangeably to measure HbA1c via the Abbott Laboratories ARCHITECT assay.

Croatian laboratories have a good knowledge of the proper detection and management of hemolyzed, icteric and lipemic samples.

BACKGROUND: Endogenous interferences are an important source of biased laboratory results. Hemolysis, lipemia and icteria are the main source of endogenous interference in laboratory medicine. Accreditation according to ISO 15189 improves the overall quality of the laboratory procedures. The aim of our study was i) to assess the level of knowledge of Croatian medical biochemists about the proper detection and management of hemolysis, lipemia and icteria; and ii) to identify possible differences in the level of knowledge respective to the laboratory accreditation status. METHODS: An on-line self-report survey was carried out by the Working Group for Preanalytical Phase of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine during April to May 2015. Survey included 14 statements (Q1-Q14) about procedures for samples with interferences and participants were asked to assess the degree of agreement with the statement using a 4-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The lowest level of knowledge was observed for statements Q10 (dealing with icteric sample; 40.9% participants agreed with the correct procedure), Q12 (allowable error for interference; 47.2%) and Q11 (dealing with lipemic sample; 60.1%). Almost all participants (97.4%) agreed that laboratories in Croatia should have a harmonized protocol for management of samples with interferences. Participants from accredited laboratories showed higher knowledge of hemolysis detection (p=0.031), rejection of hemolyzed sample (p<0.001), management of icteric samples (p=0.038) and allowable error for interferences (p=0.040). CONCLUSIONS: Croatian laboratories have a good knowledge of the proper detection and management of hemolyzed, icteric and lipemic samples. Accreditation is associated with higher knowledge about management of samples with interferences.