Preanalytical variables influencing the interpretation and reporting of biological tests on blood samples of living and deceased donors for human body materials.

With the present paper, the Working Group on Cells, Tissues and Organs and other experts of the Superior Health Council of Belgium aimed to provide stakeholders in material of human origin with advice on critical aspects of serological and nucleic acid test (NAT) testing, to improve virological safety of cell- and tissue and organ donation. The current paper focusses on a number of preanalytical variables which can be critical for any medical biology examination: (1) sampling related variables (type of samples, collection of the samples, volume of the sample, choice of specific tubes, identification of tubes), (2) variables related to transport, storage and processing of blood samples (transport, centrifugation and haemolysis, storage before and after centrifugation, use of serum versus plasma), (3) variables related to dilution (haemodilution, pooling of samples), and (4) test dependent variables (available tests and validation). Depending on the type of donor (deceased donor (heart-beating or non-heart beating) versus living donor (allogeneic, related, autologous), and the type of donated human material (cells, tissue or organs) additional factors can play a role: pre- and post-mortem sampling, conditions of sampling (e.g. morgue), haemodilution, possibility of retesting.

Intra- and interobserver analysis in the morphological assessment of early stage embryos during an IVF procedure: a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Quality control programs are necessary to maintain good clinical practice. Embryo grading has been described as one of the external quality assurance schemes. Although the evaluation of embryos is based on the assessment of morphological characteristics, considerable intra- and inter-observer variability has been described. In this multicentre study, the variability in the embryo evaluation has been evaluated using morphological characteristics on day 1, day 2 and day 3 of embryo development. METHODS: Five embryologists of four different IVF centers participated in this study. Multilevel images of embryos were presented on a website at different time points to evaluate intra-and inter-observer agreement in the assessment of embryo morphology. The embryos were evaluated on day 1, day 2 and day 3 of their development and each embryologist had to decide if the embryo had to be transferred, cryopreserved or discarded. RESULTS: Both intra-observer agreement and inter-observer agreement were good to excellent for the position of the pronuclei on day 1, the number of blastomeres on day 2 and day 3 and the clinical decision (transfer, cryopreservation, discard). For all other characteristics (size of pronuclei, presence of cytoplasomic halo, degree of fragmentation and size of blastomeres) the intra- and inter-observer agreement was moderate to very poor. CONCLUSIONS: Mono- or multicentre quality control on embryo scoring by morphological assessment can easily be performed through the design of a simple website. In the future the website design can be adapted to generate statistical feedback upon scoring and can even include a training module.