Wockenfus, Amy M.

Abstract Introduction Analytical outliers occur with most troponin assays and can adversely affect patient management. We developed a system to detect analytical outliers for the Roche Troponin T (cTnT) Gen 5 assay using repeat analysis of samples manifesting changing values over 2 to 6 hours. Methods In our ED practice, troponins are collected at baseline, 2 hours, and at times at 6 hours in plasma separator tubes and processed on the Roche Cobas e411 (Indianapolis, IN). When troponin values change by ≥10 ng/L or ≤10 ng/L in the 2- or 6-hour sample compared to baseline, the sample that produced the result is repeated. If initial and repeat values differ by > ±5 ng/L (cTnT <100 ng/L) or ±5% (cTnT ≥100 ng/L), the initial value is deemed to be an analytical outlier. Outliers are confirmed by a third measurement. Results Since March 2018, 19 of 17,154 (0.11%) troponin samples analyzed have been labeled outliers. Outliers were falsely elevated in 14 cases and falsely decreased in 5. Mean (range) of initial cTnT values for outliers was 39 ng/L (18-621 ng/L), with only one initial value >100 ng/L. All changes could affect analysis of change over time. Eleven of 19 outliers were outside gender-specific reference interval on both samples and thus did not cause a change from abnormal to normal. Repeat measurements on 8 of 19 outliers were within the URL, which may have greater clinical consequences. Conclusions Repeat analysis upon observation of changing values allows detection of analytical outliers in real time, prior to reporting results. These outliers are almost always clinically significant in terms of interpretation of changing values and at times change patients from above to below the URL. If we tested more than just changing samples, we might detect still more outliers.

Abstract BACKGROUND Anticoagulation protocols used during mechanical circulatory support call for titration of antiplatelet agents. We compared the precision and reliability of 5 platelet function tests in healthy volunteers and donors on daily antiplatelet therapy to distinguish their efficacy for titrating antiplatelet therapy. METHODS We assessed arachidonic acid–induced platelet function by light transmission aggregometry (LTA), Multiplate impedance aggregometry, VerifyNow, and platelet mapping by thromboelastography (TEG PM). We assessed ADP-induced platelet function by the same methods and flow cytometry. Forty healthy volunteers and 10–13 volunteers on daily aspirin and/or clopidogrel therapy were evaluated. We compared tests for intraassay precision, interassay precision (samples from 2 separate blood draws), and reliability coefficient. RESULTS For arachidonic acid–induced platelet aggregation in healthy volunteers, intra- and interassay CVs were ≤10% for all methods. Intra- and interassay precision among donors on daily aspirin was ≤30% for all methods except LTA (38% interassay CV) and TEG PM (95% intraassay and 104% interassay CV). For ADP-induced platelet function, intra- and interassay precision was ≤10% and ≤30% for all methods. Only Multiplate demonstrated moderate or greater (R &gt; 0.40) reliability coefficients for arachidonic acid–induced platelet function among all subjects. All methods of ADP-induced platelet function, except TEG PM, demonstrated substantial or greater (R &gt; 0.60) reliability among all subjects. CONCLUSIONS TEG PM is least suited to monitor effects of antiplatelet agents. Multiplate impedance aggregometry was the only method to demonstrate an acceptable reliability coefficient among healthy volunteers and donors on both aspirin and clopidogrel therapy.

Background: More stringent accuracy guidelines for hospital-use glucose meters have recently been published, but it remains unclear whether glucose meters can meet these accuracy guidelines when measurement is performed on critically ill patients with fresh whole blood samples. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective evaluation of a conventional (Roche Diagnostics [Indianapolis, IN] AccuChek ® Inform) and a newer-generation (Nova Biomedical [Waltham, MA] StatStrip ® ) glucose system by comparing paired (drawn within 5 min of each other) whole blood glucose meter and laboratory serum glucose values obtained from intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We also performed a prospective evaluation of the accuracy of the Nova StatStrip. Results: The median (interquartile range) bias between Roche AccuChek Inform and serum laboratory glucose measurements was 11 (6–18) mg/dL, compared with a median bias between the Nova StatStrip and serum glucose measurements of 1 (−5 to 5) mg/dL. StatStrip met International Organization for Standardization 15197 and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) POCT12-A3 accuracy guidelines using both retrospective and prospective datasets. Conclusions: The newer-generation (StatStrip) glucose meter met more stringent CLSI POCT12-A3 accuracy criteria because of reduced bias compared with the previous-generation device. Reduced glucose meter bias led to fewer insulin dosing discrepancies when the insulin dose determined from serum glucose was compared with that determined from the glucose meter value using the institutional glycemic control protocol.

Background: Previous studies have found positive bias and frequent outliers when central venous catheter (CVC) whole blood is used to dose glucose meters. We designed a study to determine whether positive bias and outliers with CVC whole blood glucose samples are due to exogenous glucose contamination of CVC samples, inherent bias and imprecision of glucose meters, or properties of CVC whole blood that interfere with the function of some glucose meters. Methods: We studied the relationship between venous whole blood and venous plasma glucose drawn by venipuncture to CVC whole blood and CVC plasma glucose in 50 hospitalized patients. In 27 patients whole blood glucose was measured on both the Accu-Chek ® Inform (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN) and StatStrip™ (Nova Biomedical, Waltham, MA). Results: By comparing CVC plasma to venous plasma glucose, we determined that contamination of CVC samples with exogenous glucose was uncommon. On the Inform meter outliers were approximately twice as common with CVC whole blood compared to venous whole blood. In 27 patients who had CVC whole blood analyzed by both Inform and StatStrip, outliers occurred approximately twice as often on the Inform compared to the StatStrip. Accounting for CVC samples contaminated with exogenous glucose, outliers on the StatStrip did not occur significantly more often using CVC whole blood compared to venous whole blood. Conclusions: Properties unique to CVC whole blood differentially affect glucose meter bias and imprecision. Device selection is critical in practices that wish to use CVC whole blood to monitor glucose concentration in hospitalized patients.

Abstract Background: We evaluated the sensitivity, precision, and concordance of 4 assays designed to detect aspirin responsiveness or resistance. Methods: Twenty-nine healthy laboratory volunteers took 80 mg aspirin for 7 days, and a subset of volunteers took 325 mg aspirin for an additional 7 days. We measured platelet function by light transmission aggregometry with arachidonic acid, PFA-100, and VerifyNow. PFA-100 and VerifyNow assays were performed in duplicate to assess method imprecision. Some volunteers had samples taken within 2–4 h of the final dose of aspirin and again within 20–24 h of the final dose. We measured urinary 11-dehydro-thromboxane B2 at baseline and after 80 or 325 mg aspirin. Results: No volunteers were nonresponsive to aspirin therapy as measured by the PFA-100. One of 29 participants demonstrated lack of response to aspirin as measured by VerifyNow and urinary 11-dehydro-thromboxane B2; 2 of 29 demonstrated lack of response as measured by light transmission aggregometry. Imprecision was &lt;10% for the PFA-100 and VerifyNow. Concordance was high (&gt;90%) between all assays. Neither aspirin dose (80 vs 325 mg) nor timing between final dose of aspirin and blood draw (2–4 vs 20–24 h) affected any of the assays. Conclusions: Light transmission aggregometry, PFA-100, VerifyNow, and urinary 11-dehydro-thromboxane B2 are all sensitive to the effects of aspirin in healthy individuals. Variables such as aspirin dose, timing between final dose of aspirin and blood collection, and imprecision do not affect the ability of the assays to detect aspirin effect on platelet function.