Clinical and Analytical Impact of Moving from Jaffe to Enzymatic Serum Creatinine Methodology.
CKD
Jaffe
analytical
creatinine
eGFR
enzymatic
glucose
hemolysis
Journal
The journal of applied laboratory medicine
ISSN: 2576-9456
Titre abrégé: J Appl Lab Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101693884
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2020
01 07 2020
Historique:
received:
21
05
2019
accepted:
22
09
2020
pubmed:
25
5
2020
medline:
20
7
2021
entrez:
25
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Identification and monitoring of chronic kidney disease (CKD) requires accurate quantification of serum creatinine. The poor specificity of Jaffe creatinine methods is well documented, and guidelines recommend enzymatic methodology. We describe our experience of moving from Jaffe to enzymatic creatinine methodology. We present comparison of >5000 paired Jaffe and enzymatic creatinine results, examine interferences, and attempt to assess clinical consequences of changing methodology. Overall, 5303 serum samples received for routine creatinine measurement were analyzed using Jaffe and enzymatic methods with an Abbott Architect autoanalyzer. Associated results for glucose, total bilirubin, triglycerides, total protein, and hemolytic, icteric, and lipemic indexes were extracted from the laboratory database. CKD staging was estimated for each sample to assess potential clinical effects. The methods correlated well (r = 0.996) and showed good agreement (Passing-Bablok fit, y = 0.935x + 0.074). Paired analysis, however, showed significant differences (P < 0.001), and approximately 20% of results differed by more than ±10%. Multivariate analysis demonstrated independent associations between difference in creatinine results, glucose (P < 0.0001), and hemolytic index (P = 0.009). Glucose demonstrated positive interference in the Jaffe method, and hemolysis produced negative interference in the enzymatic method. Little or no association was observed with other analytes. CKD staging differed in 4% of samples. Differences between Jaffe and enzymatic serum creatinine results exceed the recommended 5% target for a significant proportion of samples, particularly at concentrations <1.13 mg/dL (100 µmol/L). Both glucose and hemolysis contribute to the variance in results. Although the clinical impact of these differences seems small, laboratories should continue moving toward enzymatic creatinine estimation to ensure the best estimate of renal function.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Identification and monitoring of chronic kidney disease (CKD) requires accurate quantification of serum creatinine. The poor specificity of Jaffe creatinine methods is well documented, and guidelines recommend enzymatic methodology. We describe our experience of moving from Jaffe to enzymatic creatinine methodology. We present comparison of >5000 paired Jaffe and enzymatic creatinine results, examine interferences, and attempt to assess clinical consequences of changing methodology.
METHODS
Overall, 5303 serum samples received for routine creatinine measurement were analyzed using Jaffe and enzymatic methods with an Abbott Architect autoanalyzer. Associated results for glucose, total bilirubin, triglycerides, total protein, and hemolytic, icteric, and lipemic indexes were extracted from the laboratory database. CKD staging was estimated for each sample to assess potential clinical effects.
RESULTS
The methods correlated well (r = 0.996) and showed good agreement (Passing-Bablok fit, y = 0.935x + 0.074). Paired analysis, however, showed significant differences (P < 0.001), and approximately 20% of results differed by more than ±10%. Multivariate analysis demonstrated independent associations between difference in creatinine results, glucose (P < 0.0001), and hemolytic index (P = 0.009). Glucose demonstrated positive interference in the Jaffe method, and hemolysis produced negative interference in the enzymatic method. Little or no association was observed with other analytes. CKD staging differed in 4% of samples.
CONCLUSIONS
Differences between Jaffe and enzymatic serum creatinine results exceed the recommended 5% target for a significant proportion of samples, particularly at concentrations <1.13 mg/dL (100 µmol/L). Both glucose and hemolysis contribute to the variance in results. Although the clinical impact of these differences seems small, laboratories should continue moving toward enzymatic creatinine estimation to ensure the best estimate of renal function.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32447368
pii: 5843503
doi: 10.1093/jalm/jfaa053
doi:
Substances chimiques
Blood Glucose
0
Creatinine
AYI8EX34EU
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
631-642Informations de copyright
© American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.