The Effect of Different Blood Drawing Methods on Hemolysis and Test Results from Intravenous Catheters Used in Emergency Departments.
Journal
Clinical laboratory
ISSN: 1433-6510
Titre abrégé: Clin Lab
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9705611
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jan 2019
01 Jan 2019
Historique:
entrez:
19
2
2019
pubmed:
19
2
2019
medline:
26
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Hemolysis is frequently reported in samples sent from emergency departments. In our study we aimed to compare the influence of invitro hemolysis on test results and hemolysis ratios of different blood drawing techniques (aspiration method and vacuum filling technique) used to draw blood from intravenous (IV) catheters in Emergency Department. Two techniques (aspiration vs. vacuum filling) used to draw blood into three different tubes (Sarstedt S-Monovette® 4.9 mL Serum Gel tube, BD 5 mL Vacutainer® Rapid Serum Tube (RST), and 5 mL Vacutainer® SST™II tube) and evaluated the effect of the hemolysis index of the sera on the tests analyzed. In the emergency department blood was drawn from 128 consecutive patients into Sarstedt S-Monovette® 4.9 mL Serum Gel tubes using aspiration technique and also into BD 5 mL Vacutainer® Rapid Serum Tubes (RST) and 5 mL Vacutainer® SST™II tubes using vacuum filling technique. All the tests requested from the patients were analyzed on all tubes and the hemolysis index of all the tubes were also evaluated. As a result, the percentage of hemolysis encountered in S-Monovette® vs. SST and S-Monovette® vs. RST was 4.41% vs. 14.71% and 0% vs. 18.97%, respectively (p < 0.001, p < 0.001). In addition to this, the mean values of the test results for each assay in S-Monovette® tubes showed a significant difference when compared to RST and SST (p < 0.01). CKMB and LDH test results found in the tubes filled using the aspiration techniques (S-Monovette®) were statistically significantly lower than the results gathered from the tubes filled using vacuum filling technique (Vacutainer® RST and Vacutainer® SST) (p < 0.001). The test results and HI taken from the aspiration method seemed to be more reliable despite the presence of hemolysis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hemolysis is frequently reported in samples sent from emergency departments. In our study we aimed to compare the influence of invitro hemolysis on test results and hemolysis ratios of different blood drawing techniques (aspiration method and vacuum filling technique) used to draw blood from intravenous (IV) catheters in Emergency Department. Two techniques (aspiration vs. vacuum filling) used to draw blood into three different tubes (Sarstedt S-Monovette® 4.9 mL Serum Gel tube, BD 5 mL Vacutainer® Rapid Serum Tube (RST), and 5 mL Vacutainer® SST™II tube) and evaluated the effect of the hemolysis index of the sera on the tests analyzed.
METHODS
METHODS
In the emergency department blood was drawn from 128 consecutive patients into Sarstedt S-Monovette® 4.9 mL Serum Gel tubes using aspiration technique and also into BD 5 mL Vacutainer® Rapid Serum Tubes (RST) and 5 mL Vacutainer® SST™II tubes using vacuum filling technique. All the tests requested from the patients were analyzed on all tubes and the hemolysis index of all the tubes were also evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
As a result, the percentage of hemolysis encountered in S-Monovette® vs. SST and S-Monovette® vs. RST was 4.41% vs. 14.71% and 0% vs. 18.97%, respectively (p < 0.001, p < 0.001). In addition to this, the mean values of the test results for each assay in S-Monovette® tubes showed a significant difference when compared to RST and SST (p < 0.01). CKMB and LDH test results found in the tubes filled using the aspiration techniques (S-Monovette®) were statistically significantly lower than the results gathered from the tubes filled using vacuum filling technique (Vacutainer® RST and Vacutainer® SST) (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The test results and HI taken from the aspiration method seemed to be more reliable despite the presence of hemolysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30775901
doi: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2018.180614
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM