Citations

Abstract Background Clinical laboratories are constantly changing with automated analyzers and total lab automation (TLA) implemented and replaced over time. Some benefits of newer technologies include decreased specimen volume requirements, less need for repeat testing, and greater throughput. Recent implementation of new analyzers and replacement of TLA in the Central Clinical Laboratory (CCL) at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, prompted the laboratory to reassess blood collection volumes for commonly ordered tests. Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate whether updating the blood collection volumes for clinical chemistry and immunoassay tests performed in the CCL could reduce the volume of blood collected from patients and the number of blood collection tubes utilized. Methods Nearly 100 different serum assays from the CCL test menu were reviewed including the basic and comprehensive metabolic, hepatic function, renal function, electrolyte, and lipid panels as well as thyroid function tests, enzymes, hormones, electrolytes, and iron status tests. Cortisol, ferritin, folate, and Vitamin B12 testing were performed on the Beckman DxI800; all other testing was on Roche Diagnostics Cobas 8000 chemistry (ISE, c701, c502) and immunoassay (e801) analyzers. Updated blood volumes for each assay were calculated utilizing manufacturer’s analytical volumes and “dead volume” requirements. Baseline data retrieved from the laboratory information system (LIS) included blood collection volumes and number of tubes collected for 128 patients with physician-orders for laboratory testing on 5/2/21. The collection logic was then updated in the test LIS environment using the new blood volumes requirements and applied to the same 128 orders. Blood volumes and number of tubes collected per order were compared before and after the volume updates. Results Baseline data from 128 unique orders showed that 414 total tubes were collected with a median(range) of 3 (2–6) tubes per order and 5 (1–18) tests per tube. The total volume of blood requested at baseline was 2065 mL. Post-intervention, 197 tubes were needed with a median(range) of 2 (1–3) tubes per order and 13 (1–30) tests per tube. The total volume of blood requested after updating volumes was 851 mL. Conclusions The practice of reviewing and updating specimen volume requirements when replacing or implementing new analyzers or TLA can greatly reduce the volume of blood collected from patients and the number of blood collection tubes per order. In this study of 128 physician orders for common laboratory tests, updating blood collection information in the LIS reduced the requested blood collection volumes by 59% and decreased the number of blood collection tubes required by 52%. This not only benefits patients because less blood is collected but also conserves blood collection tubes and reduces supply chain demands. Additionally, fewer tubes on the TLA system has the potential to improve throughput and test turnaround time.

Abstract Background Hemolysis is a pre-analytic issue that challenges clinical laboratories. When a specimen with significant hemolysis is obtained in our laboratory, tests where the hemolysis threshold is exceeded are not reported and blood is recollected. Unfortunately, in a subset of patients, the recollected specimen is also hemolyzed (termed “recurrent hemolysis”). In these cases, the second recollection utilizes special collection and handling protocols (i.e., hand-carried to lab, plasma collection, etc.) to mitigate preventable causes of hemolysis. Lipemia is also a known contributor to specimen hemolysis. Mayo Clinic Rochester experienced an increased rate of hemolysis as well as recurrent hemolysis during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2022). The objective of this study was to investigate the increased rate of recurrent hemolysis and compare to a rate prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2019). Methods Retrospective data analysis was performed for January 2019 (negative control) and January 2022. The number of Mayo Clinic Rochester hospital admissions, admitting diagnosis, medications administered, and number of test collections performed were obtained using reporting functionality in our Electronic Health Record (EHR), Epic. The Laboratory Information System, SoftLab, was utilized to obtain recollection rates due to hemolysis. Data were normalized to total patient admissions for the specified period to account for inter-year variability. R/R Studio was utilized to analyze and visualize the data. Pearson’s Chi-squared test for independence was performed on categorical variables (significance defined as P < 0.05). Results A 28% decrease in hospital admissions (n = 3958:Jan-22 vs n = 5517:Jan-19) and a 23% decrease in total specimens collected on hospitalized patients (n = 40 557:Jan-22 vs n = 52 373:Jan-19) was observed between Jan-19 to Jan-22. However, the laboratory observed a 6% increase in hemolyzed specimens (n = 256:Jan-22 vs n = 241:Jan-19). Recurrent hemolysis occurred in 24% (n = 62/256) of Jan-22 and 17% (n = 43/241) of Jan-19 hemolyzed specimens and required special handling protocols. COVID positive patients comprised 48% (n = 30/62) of those requiring special handling protocols in Jan-22. Further examination revealed 34% (n = 21/62) of Jan-22 and 12% (n = 5/43) of Jan-19 cases of recurrent hemolysis were due to lipemia (P < 0.01). Chart review highlighted a potential source of lipemia from the administration of propofol, a lipophilic sedative emulsion. Of those COVID positive cases with recurrent hemolysis due to lipemia (n = 15/30), 93% (n = 14/15) were receiving propofol at the time of collection (P < 0.001). Conclusion We observed increased rates of specimen hemolysis during the COVID-19 pandemic. While most hemolysis resolves upon specimen recollection, patients with recurrently hemolyzed specimens often require special specimen collection and handling protocols to mitigate hemolysis. Approximately half of the recurrent hemolysis cases in Jan 2022 were COVID-19 positive patients. Lipemia-induced hemolysis was also more frequent in this patient population presumably due to the administration of propofol, a lipophilic emulsion sedative commonly used for COVID positive patients requiring sedation and ICU-level care. It is critical to understand the variety of factors which may contribute to recurrent hemolysis, as intervening with specialized collection and handling protocols to reduce observed pre-analytical hemolysis is required to provide accurate and timely laboratory results.

Objectives: To report the results of a rigorous quality control (QC) process in the grading of total mesorectal excision (TME) specimens during a multicenter prospective phase 2 trial of transanal TME. Background: Grading of TME specimens is based on the macroscopic assessment of the mesorectum and standardized through synoptic pathology reporting. TME grade is a strong predictor of outcomes with incomplete (IC) TME associated with increased rates of local recurrence relative to complete or near complete (NC) TME. Although TME grade serves as an endpoint in most rectal cancer trials, in protocols incorporating centralized review of TME specimens for quality assurance, discordance in grading and the management thereof has not been previously described. Methods: A phase 2 prospective transanal TME trial was conducted from 2017 to 2022 across 11 North American centers with TME quality as the primary study endpoint. QC measures included (1) training of site pathologists in TME protocols, (2) blinded grading of de-identified TME specimen photographs by central pathologists, and (3) reconciliation of major discordance before trial reporting. Cohen Kappa statistic was used to assess agreement in grading. Results: Overall agreement in grading of 100 TME specimens between site and central reviewer was rated as fair, (κ = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.10–0.61; P < 0.0001). Concordance was noted in 54%, with minor and major discordance in 32% and 14% of cases, respectively. Upon reconciliation, 13/14 (93%) major discordances were resolved. Pre versus postreconciliation rates of complete or NC and IC TME are 77%/16% and 7% versus 69%/21% and 10%. Reconciliation resulted in a major upgrade (IC–NC; N = 1) or major downgrade (NC/C–IC, N = 4) in 5 cases overall (5%). Conclusions: A 14% rate of major discordance was observed in TME grading between the site and central reviewers. The resolution resulted in a major change in final TME grade in 5% of cases, which suggests that reported rates or TME completeness are likely overestimated in trials. QC through a central review of TME photographs and reconciliation of major discordances is strongly recommended.

Abstract The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network‐3 (eMERGE‐3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE‐3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first‐degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1‐month and/or 6‐month post‐results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first‐degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first‐degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first‐degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non‐genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Abstract Background It is important for clinical laboratories to have protocols for investigating suspected biotin interference in patient samples. VeraPrep Biotin™ is a commercial product used to rapidly deplete biotin from serum/plasma samples. The objectives of this study were to verify that VeraPrep Biotin™: (a) does not impact immunoassay analyte recovery in control samples and (b) can effectively deplete biotin from samples (both biotin-spiked and samples from donors who ingested biotin supplements). Methods De-identified residual waste serum/plasma samples were combined to create 9 pools for each immunoassay. Plasma/serum samples (n = 23) were obtained from 6 healthy donors at varying times following ingestion of biotin (20 mg, 100 mg, or 200 mg). Nine Elecsys immunoassays were evaluated using the e 602 (Roche Diagnostics Inc.). Control, biotin-spiked (n = 10, ∼400 ng/mL), and donor samples were assayed pre- and post-VeraPrep treatment. Percentage analyte recovery [(posttreatment/pretreatment) × 100] was calculated for control samples. A laboratory-developed LC–MS/MS method was used to quantify biotin. Results In control samples (n = 81), 90–110% analyte recovery was observed post-VeraPrep treatment in over 95% of samples (77/81). The pre- and post-VeraPrep treatment biotin concentration [mean ± standard deviation (SD)] for specimens spiked with up to 500 ng/mL biotin was 357 ± 47 ng/mL and 1.0 ± 0.6 ng/mL, respectively. The mean (range) biotin concentration for the donor samples pre- and post-treatment was 166 (15–1029) ng/mL and 0.2 (&lt;0.1–3) ng/mL, respectively (P = 0.004). Conclusions These data demonstrate that treatment with VeraPrep Biotin™ does not affect analyte recovery in biotin-negative samples and effectively depletes both spiked and endogenous biotin in serum/plasma.