4.5 Article

Interference of in vitro hemolysis complete blood count

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Volume 32, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.22396

Keywords

analytical error; blood cell count; clinical interference; hemolysis; impedance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundHemolysis may occur in vivo, under pathological conditions, or in vitro, related to pre-analytical errors. Hemolyzed samples may produce unreliable results, leading to errors in diagnostic and monitoring evaluations. This study aims to evaluate the interference of in vitro hemolysis on the interpretation of the parameters of the blood cell-counting performed by the impedance method. MethodsPeripheral blood samples were collected in anticoagulant K2-EDTA and subsequently divided into three 1.0mL aliquots. The first aliquot was not subjected to any intervention, and the second and third aliquots were passed 5 and 10 times through a small-gauge needle to produce scalar amounts of hemolysis. Hematological tests were performed by Hemacounter 60-RT 7600((R)). ResultsComparison of the samples with different degrees of hemolysis showed a decrease in red blood cells count and hematocrit counts and increase in mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration and platelet count in samples with a high degree of hemolysis. According to the accepted clinical point of view, the samples with a high degree of hemolysis exceeded the desirable bias, presenting decrease in red blood cells count, hematocrit and mean corpuscular volume, and increase in red cell distribution width, mean corpuscular hemoglobin, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, and platelet counts. However, samples with a mild degree of hemolysis showed only a slight increase in mean corpuscular hemoglobin, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, and platelet count. ConclusionThis study demonstrated that in vitro hemolysis can decrease the clinical and analytical reliability of the assessment of the blood count.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available