Some clinical chemistry measurement methods are vulnerable to interference if hemolyzed serum samples are used. The aims of this study were: (1) to obtain updated information about how hemolysis affects clinical chemistry test results on different instrument platforms used in Nordic laboratories, and (2) to obtain data on how test results from hemolyzed samples are reported in Nordic laboratories.
Four identical samples containing different degrees of hemolysis were prepared and distributed to 145 laboratories in the Nordic countries. The laboratories were asked to measure the concentration of cell-free hemoglobin (Hb), together with 15 clinical chemistry analytes. In addition, the laboratories completed a questionnaire about how hemolyzed samples are handled and reported.
Automated detection of hemolysis in all routine patient samples was used by 63% of laboratories, and 88% had written procedures on how to handle hemolyzed samples. The different instrument platforms measured comparable mean Hb concentrations in the four samples. For most analytes, hemolysis caused a homogenous degree of interference regardless of the instrument platform used, except for alkaline phosphatase (ALP), bilirubin (total) and creatine kinase (CK). The recommended cut-off points for rejection of a result varied substantially between the manufacturers. The laboratories differed in how they reported test results, even when they used the same type of instrument.
Most of the analytes were homogeneously affected by hemolysis, regardless of the instrument used. There is large variation, however, between the laboratories on how they report test results from hemolyzed samples, even when they use the same type of instrument.
The authors would like to thank Mette Christophersen Tollånes, Noklus, for useful comments. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Nordic Society of Clinical Chemistry (NFKK).
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
1. Bonini P, Plebani M, Ceriotti F, Rubboli F. Errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 2002;48:691–8. Search in Google Scholar
2. Lippi G, Musa R, Avanzini P, Aloe R, Pipitone S, Sandei F. Influence of in vitro hemolysis on hematological testing on Advia 2120. Int J Lab Hematol 2012;34:179–84. Search in Google Scholar
3. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Interference testing in clinical chemistry; approved guideline, 2nd ed. CLSI document EP07-A2, 2005. Search in Google Scholar
4. Vermeer HJ, Thomassen E, de Jonge N. Automated processing of serum indices used for interference detection by the laboratory information system. Clin Chem 2005;51:244–7. Search in Google Scholar
5. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Hemolysis, icterus, and lipemia/turbidity indices as indicators of interference in clinical laboratory analysis; approved guideline. CLSI document C56-A, 2012. Search in Google Scholar
6. von Meyer A, Cadamuro J, Lippi G, Simundic AM. Call for more transparency in manufacturers declarations on serum indices: on behalf of the Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE), European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM). Clin Chim Acta 2018;484:328–32. Search in Google Scholar
7. Fernandez P, Llopis MA, Perich C, Alsina MJ, Alvarez V, Biosca C, et al. Harmonization in hemolysis detection and prevention. A working group of the Catalonian Health Institute (ICS) experience. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:1557–68. Search in Google Scholar
8. Dolci A, Panteghini M. Harmonization of automated hemolysis index assessment and use: is it possible? Clin Chim Acta 2014;432:38–43. Search in Google Scholar
9. Uldall A, Loikkanen M, Ólafsdóttir E, Örne-mark U, Nordin G, Steensland H. Nordic interference study, March 2002 – effects of haemoglobin and bilirubin on some common serum analysis, NQLM Report 2003 [cited 2019 1 May]. Available from: http://doc.noklus.no/handler.ashx?r=nkk&id=Interfer_hem_bil.pdf. Search in Google Scholar
10. Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics [cited 2019 1 May]. Available from: https://helseforskning.etikkom.no/reglerogrutiner/soknadsplikt/sokerikkerek?p_dim=34999&_ikbLanguageCode=us. Search in Google Scholar
11. Lippi G, Musa R, Aloe R, Mercadanti M, Pipitone S. Influence of temperature and period of freezing on the generation of hemolysate and blood cell lysate. Clin Biochem 2011;44:1267–9. Search in Google Scholar
12. Gidske G, Solvik UO, Sandberg S, Kristensen GB. Hemolysis interference studies: freeze method should be used in the preparation of hemolyzed samples. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:e220–2. Search in Google Scholar
13. Perovic A, Dolcic M. Influence of hemolysis on clinical chemistry parameters determined with Beckman Coulter tests – detection of clinically significant interference. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2019;79:154–9. Search in Google Scholar
14. Glick MR, Ryder KW, Jackson SA. Graphical comparisons of interferences in clinical chemistry instrumentation. Clin Chem 1986;32:470–5. Search in Google Scholar
15. Lippi G, Montagnana M, Giavarina D, Italian Society of Clinical B, Clinical Molecular B, Italian Society of Laboratory M, et al. National survey on the pre-analytical variability in a representative cohort of Italian laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:1491–4. Search in Google Scholar
16. Badrick T, Barden H, Callen S, Dimeski G, Gay S, Graham P, et al. Consensus statement for the management and reporting of haemolysed specimens. Clin Biochem Rev 2016;37:140–2. Search in Google Scholar
17. Lippi G, Cadamuro J, von Meyer A, Simundic AM, European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE). Practical recommendations for managing hemolyzed samples in clinical chemistry testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56: 718–27. Search in Google Scholar
18. McCaughey EJ, Vecellio E, Lake R, Li L, Burnett L, Chesher D, et al. Current methods of haemolysis detection and reporting as a source of risk to patient safety: a narrative review. Clin Biochem Rev 2016;37:143–51. Search in Google Scholar
19. Simundic AM, Nikolac N, Ivankovic V, Ferenec-Ruzic D, Magdic B, Kvaternik M, et al. Comparison of visual vs. automated detection of lipemic, icteric and hemolyzed specimens: can we rely on a human eye? Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:1361–5. Search in Google Scholar
20. Lippi G, Luca Salvagno G, Blanckaert N, Giavarina D, Green S, Kitchen S, et al. Multicenter evaluation of the hemolysis index in automated clinical chemistry systems. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:934–9. Search in Google Scholar
21. Nikolac Gabaj N, Miler M, Vrtaric A, Hemar M, Filipi P, Kocijancic M, et al. Precision, accuracy, cross reactivity and comparability of serum indices measurement on Abbott Architect c8000, Beckman Coulter AU5800 and Roche Cobas 6000 c501 clinical chemistry analyzers. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:776–88. Search in Google Scholar
22. Lippi G, Favaloro EJ, Franchini M. Haemolysis index for the screening of intravascular haemolysis: a novel diagnostic opportunity? Blood Transfus 2018;16:433–7. Search in Google Scholar
23. Steen G, Vermeer HJ, Naus AJ, Goevaerts B, Agricola PT, Schoenmakers CH. Multicenter evaluation of the interference of hemoglobin, bilirubin and lipids on Synchron LX-20 assays. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:413–9. Search in Google Scholar
24. Petinos P, Gay S, Badrick T. Variation in laboratory reporting of haemolysis – a need for harmonisation. Clin Biochem Rev 2015;36:133–7. Search in Google Scholar
25. Howanitz PJ, Lehman CM, Jones BA, Meier FA, Horowitz GL. Clinical laboratory quality practices when hemolysis occurs. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015;139:901–6. Search in Google Scholar
26. Monneret D, Mestari F, Atlan G, Corlouer C, Ramani Z, Jaffre J, et al. Hemolysis indexes for biochemical tests and immunoassays on Roche analyzers: determination of allowable interference limits according to different calculation methods. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2015;75:162–9. Search in Google Scholar
27. Glick MR, Ryder KW, Glick SJ. Interferographs. User’s guide to interferences in clinical chemistry instruments, 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Science Enterprises, Inc., 1991:153. Search in Google Scholar
28. Farrell CJ, Carter AC. Serum indices: managing assay interference. Ann Clin Biochem 2016;53(Pt 5):527–38. Search in Google Scholar
29. McKeeman GC, Auld PW. A national survey of troponin testing and recommendations for improved practice. Ann Clin Biochem 2015;52(Pt 5):527–42. Search in Google Scholar
30. Nikolac N, Krleza JL, Simundic AM. Preanalytical external quality assessment of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine and CROQALM: finding undetected weak spots. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2017;27:131–43. Search in Google Scholar
31. El-Khoury JM, Bunch DR, Wang S. Is the effect of hemolysis on plasma ammonia measurement overrated? Arch Pathol Lab Med 2012;136:471–2. Search in Google Scholar
32. Dimeski G. Effects of hemolysis on the Roche ammonia method for Hitachi analyzers. Clin Chem 2004;50:976–7. Search in Google Scholar
33. Goyal T, Schmotzer CL. Validation of hemolysis index thresholds optimizes detection of clinically significant hemolysis. Am J Clin Pathol 2015;143:579–83. Search in Google Scholar
34. Carraro P, Servidio G, Plebani M. Hemolyzed specimens: a reason for rejection or a clinical challenge? Clin Chem 2000;46:306–7. Search in Google Scholar
35. Campbell CA, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI, Horvath AR. What alert thresholds should be used to identify critical risk results: a systematic review of the evidence. Clin Chem 2016;62:1445–57. Search in Google Scholar
36. Bukve T, Stavelin A, Sandberg S. Effect of participating in a quality improvement system over time for point-of-care C-reactive protein, glucose, and hemoglobin testing. Clin Chem 2016;62:1474–81. Search in Google Scholar
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0366).
©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston