4.7 Article

Effect of collection tube type and preanalytical handling on myeloperoxidase concentrations

Journal

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 54, Issue 6, Pages 1076-1079

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2007.101568

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Myeloperoxidase (MPO) has shown potential as a marker for cardiovascular disease. Limited studies have been published with a variety of sample types, resulting in a wide range of MPO values. Little is known or understood about the impact of collection tube type and preanalytical handling of specimens for MPO determination. METHOD: MPO concentration was determined by use of the ARCHITECT (R) MPO research use assay, which is currently under development. Samples were collected into multiple anticoagulant collection tubes from donors and patients presenting to the emergency department with symptoms of acute coronary syndromes. Whole blood was stored on ice or at room temperature for predetermined time periods. We also evaluated serum and plasma after centrifugation followed by storage at too in temperature, 2-8 degrees C, and below -10 degrees C. RESULTS: Baseline sample concentrations were dependent on collection tube type as well as handling conditions. MPO concentrations were consistently higher in samples collected in serum and heparin plasma tubes than in samples in EDTA or citrate tubes. Spike recovery was acceptable in all sera and plasma tested, indicating that the increased MPO concentrations were not due directly to an anticoagulant interference. CONCLUSIONS: The collection tube type and preanalytical handling are critical for accurate and consistent MPO measurement. The preferred anticoagulant and tubes are the EDTA or EDTA plasma preparation tube. MPO concentrations in samples collected in these tubes are stable before centrifugation as whole blood as well as plasma after processing.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available