Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter July 29, 2011

Results of the recalibration of creatinine measurement with the modular Beckman Coulter® Jaffe creatinine method

Catherine Fillée, Guido Vranken, Myriam Othmane, Marianne Philippe, Jean-Michel Allaeys, Anne Courbe, Jean-Luc Ruelle and Rudy Peeters


Background: Serum creatinine is important for detecting the beginning of a decline in kidney function. The Beckman Coulter Jaffe reagents for measuring creatinine have been standardized to the internationally accepted reference method: isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS). The impact of this recalibration on the Beckman Coulter® modular or cup (stat) Jaffe method is studied.

Methods: Recalibrated Jaffe (calibrator set points IDMS traceable) and classic National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) creatinine methods (traceable to NIST 914a) were compared with an enzymatic method (Sentinel, traceable to NIST SRM 967). All measurements were performed on Synchron DxC 800 systems. Imprecision of the routine methods was studied using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) protocols and laboratory quality survey. Thirteen plasma pools, with concentrations <354 μmol/L, were analyzed with a gas chromatography isotope dilution mass spectrometry (GC-IDMS) method and routine methods. Total error of 8.2% based on biological variability, set on the GC-IDMS values and acceptance criteria (bias <5%, imprecision <8% at concentrations ≥88.4 μmol/L and a maximum 10% increase in the relative error of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of the National Kidney Disease Educational Program (NKDEP) were used for evaluating analytical performance of the routine methods studied.

Results: After recalibration of the Jaffe method, median bias (μmol/L) decreased from 12.4 (95% CI: 9.1–21.2) to 7.3 (95% CI: 1.5–10.5). Imprecision of the Jaffe method is in agreement with the claim of the manufacturer, namely <9 μmol/L or <3% below or above 292 μmol/L. Below creatinine of 88.4 μmol/L, imprecision of the recalibrated Jaffe and enzymatic methods is between 4.1% and 6.9%, and 5.0% and 7.1%, respectively, and significantly different (p=0.02 for both the Jaffe and enzymatic methods) from the goal, based on biological variability, of 2.7%. For the adult pools, all recalibrated Jaffe and enzymatic results fall within the total error of 8.2%. In the pediatric samples, one-third of the recalibrated Jaffe and three of the six enzymatic results fall within this total error goal.

Conclusions: Recalibration significantly reduced bias of the Jaffe method. For pediatric samples, recalibrated Jaffe results do not comply with either the imprecision goal or the total error based on biological variability. Adult recalibrated Jaffe results are in compliance with the goals based on biological variability and with the acceptance criteria from the NKDEP.

Corresponding author: Guido Vranken, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Analis S.A./N.V., Rue de Néverlée, 5020 Suarlée, Belgium Fax: +32-9-2200848

Received: 2011-5-9
Accepted: 2011-6-29
Published Online: 2011-7-29
Published in Print: 2011-12-1

©2011 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston