Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter April 7, 2020

Determination of hemolysis cut-offs for biochemical and immunochemical analytes according to their value

  • Anne Marie Dupuy , Anne Sophie Bargnoux , Nils Kuster , Jean Paul Cristol EMAIL logo and Stéphanie Badiou



All general biochemistry instruments allow the measure of hemolysis index (HI), and suppliers provide an acceptable HI for each assay without consideration of the analyte value or its clinical application. Our first objective was to measure the impact of hemolysis degree on plasma biochemical and immunochemical analytes to determine the maximum allowable HI for each of them using four calculation methods as significant bias in comparison to manufacturer’s data. The second objective was to assess whether the maximum allowable HI varied according to the analyte values.


Twenty analytes were measured in hemolyzate-treated plasma to determine the HI leading to a significant change compared to baseline value. Analytes were assessed at one (3 analytes), two (5 analytes) and three (12 analytes) values according to their sensitivity to hemolysis and their clinical impact. We used four calculation methods as significant limit from baseline value: the total change limit (TCL), the 10% change (10%Δ), the analytical change limit and the reference change value.


Allowable HI was significantly different according to the threshold chosen for most analytes and was also dependent on the analyte value for alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatine kinase, iron, haptoglobin and high sensitivity troponin T. No hemolysis interference was observed for albumin, creatinine, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin even at an HI value of 11 g/L.


This study highlights that TCL is the most appropriate calculation method to determine allowable HI in practice for biochemical and immunochemical parameters using Cobas 8000© from Roche Diagnostics. In addition, different allowable HI were found according to analyte value leading to optimization of resampling to save time in patient care.


We gratefully acknowledge all the laboratory technicians for their assistance.

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. 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. Lippi G, Blanckaert N, Bonini P, Green S, Kitchen S, Palicka V, et al. Haemolysis: an overview of the leading cause of unsuitable specimens in clinical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:764–72.10.1515/CCLM.2008.170Search in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Heiligers-Duckers C, Peters NA, van Dijck JJ, Hoeijmakers JM, Janssen MJ. Low vacuum and discard tubes reduce hemolysis in samples drawn from intravenous catheters. Clin Biochem 2013;46:1142–4.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.04.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Heyer NJ, Derzon JH, Winges L, Shaw C, Mass D, Snyder SR, et al. Effectiveness of practices to reduce blood sample hemolysis in EDs: a laboratory medicine best practices systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Biochem 2012;45:1012–32.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.08.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

4. Liu D, Li Y, Huang Y. The prevalence of hemolysis – a survey using hemolysis index. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:e90–1.10.1515/cclm-2016-0698Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Mrazek C, Simundic AM, Wiedemann H, Krahmer F, Felder TK, Kipman U, et al. The relationship between vacuum and hemolysis during catheter blood collection: a retrospective analysis of six large cohorts. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:1129–34.10.1515/cclm-2016-0940Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Ryder KW, Trundle DS, Bode MA, Cole RE, Moorehead WR, Glick MR. Effects of hemolysis, icterus, and lipemia on automated immunoassays. Clin Chem 1991;37:1134–5.10.1093/clinchem/37.6.1134Search in Google Scholar

7. Ali D, Sacchetto E, Dumontet E, Le Carrer D, Orsonneau JL, Delaroche O, et al. Hemolysis influence on twenty-two biochemical parameters measurement. Ann Biol Clin 2014;72:297–311.10.1684/abc.2014.0952Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. CLSI. Interference testing in clinical chemistry; approved guideline-second edition. CLSI document EP07-A2. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

9. Farrell CJ, Carter AC. Hemolysis interference: are laboratories getting the information they need? Clin Chem 2016;62:1274–6.10.1373/clinchem.2016.258277Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. 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;75:162–9.10.3109/00365513.2014.993691Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Lippi G, Cadamuro J, von Meyer A, Simundic AM, European Federation of Clinical C, Laboratory Medicine Working Group for Preanalytical P. Practical recommendations for managing hemolyzed samples in clinical chemistry testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:718–27.10.1515/cclm-2017-1104Search in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Bastin P, Favresse J, Streel C, Maisin D, Fillée C, Gruson D. Assessment of in vitro stability: a call for harmonization across studies. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:e121–4.10.1515/cclm-2017-1024Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Oddoze C, Lombard E, Portugal H. Stability study of 81 analytes in human whole blood, in serum and in plasma. Clin Biochem 2012;45:464–9.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.01.012Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Ricós C, Alvarez V, Cava F, Garcia-Lario JV, Hernández A, Jimenez CV, et al. Current databases on biological variation: pros, cons and progress. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1999;59: 491–500.10.1080/00365519950185229Search in Google Scholar PubMed

15. Barassi A, Pallotti F, Melzi d’Eril G. Biological variation of procalcitonin in healthy individuals. Clin Chem 2004;50:1878.10.1373/clinchem.2004.037275Search in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Nordenskjöld AM, Ahlström H, Eggers KM, Fröbert O, Jaffe AS, Venge P, et al. Short- and long-term individual variation in cardiac troponin in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Clin Chem 2013;59:401–9.10.1373/clinchem.2012.191700Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Ricós C, Cava F, García-Lario JV, Hernández A, Iglesias N, Jiménez CV, et al. The reference change value: a proposal to interpret laboratory reports in serial testing based on biological variation. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2004;64:175–84.10.1080/00365510410004885Search in Google Scholar PubMed

18. Ji JZ, Meng QH. Evaluation of the interference of hemoglobin, bilirubin, and lipids on Roche Cobas 6000 assays. Clin Chim Acta 2011;412:1550–3.10.1016/j.cca.2011.04.034Search in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Agarwal S, Vargas G, Nordstrom C, Tam E, Buffone GJ, Devaraj S. Effect of interference from hemolysis, icterus and lipemia on routine pediatric clinical chemistry assays. Clin Chim Acta 2015;438:241–5.10.1016/j.cca.2014.08.008Search in Google Scholar PubMed

20. Dolci A, Panteghini M. Harmonization of automated hemolysis index assessment and use: is it possible? Clin Chim Acta 2014;432:38–43.10.1016/j.cca.2013.10.012Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP, Mueller C, Valgimigli M, Andreotti F, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2016;37:267–315.10.1093/eurheartj/ehv320Search in Google Scholar PubMed

22. Florkowski C, Wallace J, Walmsley T, George P. The effect of hemolysis on current troponin assays – a confounding preanalytical variable? Clin Chem 2010;56:1195–7.10.1373/clinchem.2009.140863Search in Google Scholar PubMed

23. Snyder JA, Rogers MW, King MS, Phillips JC, Chapman JF, Hammett-Stabler CA. The impact of hemolysis on Ortho-Clinical Diagnostic’s ECi and Roche’s elecsys immunoassay systems. Clin Chim Acta 2004;348:181–7.10.1016/j.cccn.2004.05.017Search in Google Scholar PubMed

24. Dimeski G. Effects of hemolysis on the Roche ammonia method for Hitachi analyzers. Clin Chem 2004;50:976–7.10.1373/clinchem.2003.028993Search in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Perović A, Dolčić M. Influence of hemolysis on clinical chemistry parameters determined with Beckman Coulter tests – detection of clinically significant interference. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2019;79:154–9.10.1080/00365513.2019.1576099Search in Google Scholar PubMed

26. 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;484:328–32.10.1016/j.cca.2018.03.043Search in Google Scholar PubMed

27. Cadamuro J, Lippi G, von Meyer A, Ibarz M, van Dongen-Lases E, Cornes M, et al. European survey on preanalytical sample handling – part 2: practices of European laboratories on monitoring and processing haemolytic, icteric and lipemic samples. On behalf of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE). Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2019;29:020705.10.11613/BM.2019.020705Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (

Received: 2019-11-27
Accepted: 2020-02-18
Published Online: 2020-04-07
Published in Print: 2020-07-28

©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 21.2.2024 from
Scroll to top button