Abstract
Background:
The pneumatic tube system (PTS) is commonly used in modern clinical laboratories to provide quick specimen delivery. However, its impact on sample integrity and laboratory testing results are still debatable. In addition, each PTS installation and configuration is unique to its institution. We sought to validate our Swisslog PTS by comparing routine chemistry, hematology, coagulation and blood gas test results and sample integrity indices between duplicate samples transported either manually or by PTS.
Methods:
Duplicate samples were delivered to the core laboratory manually by human courier or via the Swisslog PTS. Head-to-head comparisons of 48 routine chemistry, hematology, coagulation and blood gas laboratory tests, and three sample integrity indices were conducted on 41 healthy volunteers and 61 adult patients.
Results:
The PTS showed no impact on sample hemolysis, lipemia, or icterus indices (all p<0.05). Although alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin and hemoglobin reached statistical significance (p=0.009, 0.027 and 0.012, respectively), all had very low average bias which ranged from 0.01% to 2%. Potassium, total hemoglobin and percent deoxyhemoglobin were statistically significant for the neonatal capillary tube study (p=0.011, 0.033 and 0.041, respectively) but no biases greater than ±4% were identified for these parameters. All observed differences of these 48 laboratory tests were not clinically significant.
Conclusions:
The modern PTS investigated in this study is acceptable for reliable sample delivery for routine chemistry, hematology, coagulation and blood gas (in syringe and capillary tube) laboratory tests.
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.
References
1. Plebani M. The detection and prevention of errors in laboratory medicine. Ann Clin Biochem 2010;47:101–10.10.1258/acb.2009.009222Search in Google Scholar
2. Fleisher M, Schwartz MK. Automated approaches to rapid-response testing. A comparative evaluation of point-of-care and centralized laboratory testing. Am J Clin Path 1995;104(4 Suppl 1):S18–25.Search in Google Scholar
3. Simundic A-M, Topic E. Quality indicators. Biochemia Medica 2008;18:311–9.10.11613/BM.2008.027Search in Google Scholar
4. Fernandes CM, Worster A, Eva K, Hill S, McCallum C. Pneumatic tube delivery system for blood samples reduces turnaround times without affecting sample quality. J Emerg Nurs 2006;32:139–43.10.1016/j.jen.2005.11.013Search in Google Scholar
5. Guss DA, Chan TC, Killeen JP. The impact of a pneumatic tube and computerized physician order management on laboratory turnaround time. Ann Emerg Med 2008;51:181–5.10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.03.010Search in Google Scholar
6. Bolliger D, Seeberger MD, Tanaka KA, Dell-Kuster S, Gregor M, Zenklusen U, et al. Pre-analytical effects of pneumatic tube transport on impedance platelet aggregometry. Platelets 2009;20:458–65.10.3109/09537100903236462Search in Google Scholar
7. Leverett LB, Hellums JD, Alfrey CP, Lynch EC. Red blood cell damage by shear stress. Biophys J 1972;12:257–73.10.1016/S0006-3495(72)86085-5Search in Google Scholar
8. Kara H, Bayir A, Ak A, Degirmenci S, Akinci M, Agacayak A, et al. Hemolysis associated with pneumatic tube system transport for blood samples. Pak J Med Sci 2014;30:50–8.10.12669/pjms.301.4228Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
9. Wallin O, Söderberg J, Grankvist K, Jonsson PA, Hultdin J. Preanalytical effects of pneumatic tube transport on routine haematology, coagulation parameters, platelet function and global coagulation. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:1443–9.10.1515/CCLM.2008.288Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Collinson P, John C, Gaze D, Ferrigan L, Cramp D. Changes in blood gas samples produced by a pneumatic tube system. J Clin Path 2002;55:105–7.10.1136/jcp.55.2.105Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
11. Victor Peter J, Patole S, Fleming JJ, Selvakumar R, Graham PL. Agreement between paired blood gas values in samples transported either by a pneumatic system or by human courier. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:1303–9.10.1515/CCLM.2011.611Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Zaman Z, Demedts M. Blood gas analysis: POCT versus central laboratory on samples sent by a pneumatic tube system. Clin Chim Acta 2001;307:101–6.10.1016/S0009-8981(01)00439-9Search in Google Scholar
13. Lu J-Y, Kao J-T, Chien T-I, Lee T-F, Tsai K-S. Effects of air bubbles and tube transportation on blood oxygen tension in arterial blood gas analysis. J Formos Med Assoc 2003;102:246–9.Search in Google Scholar
14. Sodi R, Darn SM, Stott A. Pneumatic tube system induced haemolysis: assessing sample type susceptibility to haemolysis. Anna Clin Biochem 2004;41:237–40.10.1258/000456304323019631Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Streichert T, Otto B, Schnabel C, Nordholt G, Haddad M, Maric M, et al. Determination of hemolysis thresholds by the use of data loggers in pneumatic tube systems. Clin Chem 2011;57:1390–7.10.1373/clinchem.2011.167932Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Gomez-Rioja R, Fernandez-Calle P, Alcaide MJ, Madero R, Oliver P, Iturzaeta JM, et al. Interindividual variability of hemolysis in plasma samples during pneumatic tube system transport. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:e231–3.10.1515/cclm-2013-0171Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Amann G, Zehntner C, Marti F, Colucci G. Effect of acceleration forces during transport through a pneumatic tube system on ROTEM® analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:1335–42.10.1515/cclm-2011-0800Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Yan R, Colantonio D, Wong P-Y, Chen Y. Suitability of Becton Dickinson Vacutainer rapid serum tube for collecting and storing blood samples for antibiotic and anticonvulsant drug monitoring. J Clin Path 2014;67:807–10.10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202466Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Chen J, Gorman M, O’Reilly B, Chen Y. Analytical evaluation of the epoc® point-of-care blood analysis system in cardiopulmonary bypass patients. Clin Biochem 2016;49:708–712.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.12.015Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. MaCP M. Regulations implementing the clinical laboratory improvement amendments of 1988 (CLIA ‘88). Fed Regist 1992:7002–186.Search in Google Scholar
21. Yan R, Lou A, Watts G, Tarr H, Smith H, Kinney L, et al. Comparison of Becton Dickinson Vacutainer rapid serum tube with the serum separator tube for routine chemistry and immunoassay tests. J Clin Path 2014;67:599–604.10.1136/jclinpath-2013-202130Search in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Knowles TP, Mullin RA, Hunter JA, Douce HF. Effects of syringe material, sample storage time, and temperature on blood gases and oxygen saturation in arterialized human blood samples. Respir Care 2006;51:732–6.Search in Google Scholar
23. National Committee for Clinical Laboratories Standards (NCCLS) document H18-A2. Procedures of the handling and processing of blood specimens. Wayne, PA: NCCLS, 1999.Search in Google Scholar
24. Ruddy KJ, Wu D, Brown JR. Pseudohyperkalemia in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2781–2.10.1200/JCO.2008.16.3014Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Kavsak PA, Mansour M, Wang L, Campeau S, Clark L, Brooks D, et al. Assessing pneumatic tube systems with patient-specific populations and laboratory-derived criteria. Clin Chem 2012;58:792–5.10.1373/clinchem.2011.179044Search in Google Scholar PubMed
26. Plebani M, Zaninotto M. Pneumatic tube delivery systems for patient samples: evidence of quality and quality of evidence. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:1245–6.10.1515/CCLM.2011.216Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston