Naslov
Interference sample as a source of preanalytical variablity: results of Croatian preanalytical External Quality Assessment CROQALM program

Autori
Nikolac Gabaj, Nora ; Ćelap, Ivana ; Leniček Krleža, Jasna

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Sažeci sa skupova, sažetak, stručni

Izvornik
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine / Plebani, Mario - Berlin : Walter de Gruyter, 2019, EA72-eA73

Skup
5th EFLM Conference on Preanalytical Phase

Mjesto i datum
Zagreb, Hrvatska, 22.03.2019. - 23.03.2019

Vrsta sudjelovanja
Poster

Vrsta recenzije
Međunarodna recenzija

Ključne riječi
preanalytical phase, external quality assessment, interference, icteria

Sažetak
BACKGROUND-AIM: The aim of this study is to present results of distributing icteric sample within Croatian preanalytical External Quality Assessment (EQA) provider CROQALM. METHODS: All Croatian laboratories (N = 194) were invited to participate in free-of-charge preanalytical EQA during 2018. In March (Sample 1) and September (Sample 3) serum sample for clinical chemistry, while in June (Sample 2) citrate plasma for coagulation were distributed. Samples were prepared as follows: leftover serum/citrate plasma samples without any visible interference were collected, mixed, immediately frozen at -20 °C for 48 hours, thawed and filtered once using filter paper. Pools were spiked with powdered bilirubin (Sigma-Aldrich, Missouri, USA) in order to create icteric samples. Samples were aliquoted and sent out to laboratories within 48 hours. Participants were asked to evaluate the degree of interference. Responses were collected via service SurveyMonkey (California, USA). Variables were compared using Chi-square test in MedCalc (v12.7.2.0, Ostend, Belgium). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Majority of laboratories evaluate icteria visually (108/161, 67.1% ; 140/148, 94.6% ; 101/156, 64.7% in cycles 1-3, respectively) with lower representation of automatic evaluation in coagulation (cycle 2 ; P < 0.001). When asked to visually evaluate the sample, 109/157, 69.4% ; 103/144, 71.5% ; 101/153, 66% gave the preferred answer (“icteric sample”), no differences between cycles were observed (P = 0.450). Out of laboratories using automatic evaluation of icteria, significantly more expressed index quantitatively in cycle 3 vs. 1. (78.8% vs. 42.2% ; P < 0.001). No laboratory provided data on automatic index in coagulation cycle. 2/3 of laboratories express I index in μmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: Large variability between Croatian laboratories was observed in management of icteric sample, with automatic evaluation being more implemented in clinical chemistry than in coagulation.

Izvorni jezik
Engleski

Znanstvena područja
Kliničke medicinske znanosti

POVEZANOST RADA