4.4 Article

Differences in sampling techniques on total post-mortem tryptase

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL MEDICINE
Volume 132, Issue 3, Pages 741-745

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00414-017-1738-8

Keywords

Anaphylaxis; Post-mortem; Tryptase; Sampling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The measurement of mast cell tryptase is commonly used to support the diagnosis of anaphylaxis. In the post-mortem setting, the literature recommends sampling from peripheral blood sources (femoral blood) but does not specify the exact sampling technique. Sampling techniques vary between pathologists, and it is unclear whether different sampling techniques have any impact on post-mortem tryptase levels. The aim of this study is to compare the difference in femoral total post-mortem tryptase levels between two sampling techniques. A 6-month retrospective study comparing femoral total post-mortem tryptase levels between (1) aspirating femoral vessels with a needle and syringe prior to evisceration and (2) femoral vein cut down during evisceration. Twenty cases were identified, with three cases excluded from analysis. There was a statistically significant difference (paired t test, p < 0.05) between mean post-mortem tryptase by aspiration (10.87 ug/L) and by cut down (14.15 ug/L). The mean difference between the two methods was 3.28 ug/L (median, 1.4 ug/L; min, - 6.1 ug/L; max, 16.5 ug/L; 95% CI, 0.001-6.564 ug/L). Femoral total post-mortem tryptase is significantly different, albeit by a small amount, between the two sampling methods. The clinical significance of this finding and what factors may contribute to it are unclear. When requesting post-mortem tryptase, the pathologist should consider documenting the exact blood collection site and method used for collection. In addition, blood samples acquired by different techniques should not be mixed together and should be analyzed separately if possible.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available