Lipaemia: Causes, consequences and solutions

A survey of practice in the management of haemolysis, icterus and lipaemia in blood specimens in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland

BACKGROUND

Haemolysis, icterus and lipaemia (HIL) are common interferants in laboratory medicine, potentially impacting patient care. This survey investigates HIL management in medical laboratories across the UK and Republic of Ireland (ROI).

METHODS

A survey was sent to members of key professional organisations for laboratory medicine in the UK and ROI. Questions related to the detection, monitoring, quality control, and management of HIL.

RESULTS

In total, responses from 124 laboratories were analysed, predominantly from England (52%) and ROI (36%). Most responses were from public hospitals with biochemistry services (90%), serving primary care (91%), inpatients (91%), and outpatients (89%). Most laboratories monitored H (98%), I (88%), and L (96%) using automated indices (93%), alone or in combination with visual inspection.Manufacturer-stated cut-offs were used by 83% and were applied to general chemistries in 79%, and immunoassays in 50%. Where HIL cut-offs are breached, 64% withheld results, while 96% reported interference to users. HIL were defined using numeric scales (70%) and ordinal scales (26%). HIL targets exist in 35% of laboratories, and 54% have attempted to reduce HIL. Internal Quality Control for HIL was lacking in 62% of laboratories, and just 18% of respondents have participated in External Quality Assurance. Laboratories agree manufacturers should: standardise HIL reporting (94%), ensure comparability between platforms (94%), and provide information on HIL cross-reactivity (99%). Respondents (99%) showed interest in evidence-based, standardised HIL cut-offs.

CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents monitor HIL, although the wide variation in practice may differentially affect clinical care. Laboratories seem receptive to education and advice on HIL management.

Removing Lipemia in Serum/Plasma Samples: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Lipemia, a significant source of analytical errors in clinical laboratory settings, should be removed prior to measuring biochemical parameters. We investigated whether lipemia in serum/plasma samples can be removed using a method that is easier and more practicable than ultracentrifugation, the current reference method.

METHODS

Seven hospital laboratories in Spain participated in this study. We first compared the effectiveness of ultracentrifugation (108,200×g) and high-speed centrifugation (10,000×g for 15 minutes) in removing lipemia. Second, we compared high-speed centrifugation with two liquid-liquid extraction methods-LipoClear (StatSpin, Norwood, USA), and 1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoroethane (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany). We assessed 14 biochemical parameters: serum/plasma concentrations of sodium ion, potassium ion, chloride ion, glucose, total protein, albumin, creatinine, urea, alkaline phosphatase, gamma-glutamyl transferase, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate-aminotransferase, calcium, and bilirubin. We analyzed whether the differences between lipemia removal methods exceeded the limit for clinically significant interference (LCSI).

RESULTS

When ultracentrifugation and high-speed centrifugation were compared, no parameter had a difference that exceeded the LCSI. When high-speed centrifugation was compared with the two liquid-liquid extraction methods, we found differences exceeding the LCSI in protein, calcium, and aspartate aminotransferase in the comparison with 1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoroethane, and in protein, albumin, and calcium in the comparison with LipoClear. Differences in other parameters did not exceed the LCSI.

CONCLUSIONS

High-speed centrifugation (10,000×g for 15 minutes) can be used instead of ultracentrifugation to remove lipemia in serum/plasma samples. LipoClear and 1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoroethane are unsuitable as they interfere with the measurement of certain parameters.

Causes of hypoamylasaemia in a hospital population

AIMS

We noted serum amylase activity results in our laboratory that fell below the lower reference limit, although there was no obvious explanation for this and the literature on this topic is relatively sparse.

METHODS

We studied hospital laboratory requests and reports of individuals showing hypoamylasaemia over a one-year period.

RESULTS

We report one of the few studies to look at hypoamylasaemia in a hospital population. We found that 5.4% of the hospital serum amylase activity results were below the reference range quoted by our laboratory.

CONCLUSIONS

Some of the associations we observed with hypoamylasaemia were diabetes mellitus, cystic fibrosis, hypertriglyceridaemia and use of the antibiotic gentamicin. We suggest that clinicians and laboratories should be aware of the causes of hypoamylasaemia to aid interpretation of abnormally low amylase activity in their patients.

The evaluation and comparison of consecutive high speed centrifugation and LipoClear® reagent for lipemia removal

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficiency of high speed centrifugation and LipoClear® reagent for lipemia removal in plasma samples spiked with Intralipid®, for 26 biochemistry analytes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A plasma pool was collected. Aliquots of the pool were spiked with Intralipid® (final concentrations of 300mg/dL and 500mg/dL Intralipid®). The lipemia was removed from the aliquots by high speed centrifugation or LipoClear® reagent. 26 analytes were determined in native, lipemic plasma and in samples after lipemia removal. The bias from the concentration in the native sample was calculated for each parameter for Intralipid® concentrations, 300 and 500mg/dL of Intralipid®, respectively. Also, the recovery for each parameter after processing the samples using high speed centrifugation and LipoClear® was calculated. The biases and test recoveries were compared with the desirable specification for imprecision (DSI) according to Ricos available at the Wesgard's website. The bias and recovery for procalcitonin were compared with DSI according to Barassi and colleagues.

RESULTS

The bias of the spiked samples exceeded the DSI at 300mg/L Intralipid® for creatinine, glucose, total protein, iron and albumin; and for all previously mentioned parameters including CK-MB, sodium, potassium, chlorides, magnesium and ALP at concentration of 500mg/L Intralipid®. For the test recovery the DSI criteria were not met for calcium, total protein, sodium and chlorides after high speed centrifugation and for glucose, calcium, phosphates, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chlorides, ALP, GGT, CK-MB, total protein, albumin and troponin T after using LipoClear®.

CONCLUSIONS

LipoClear® is not suitable for lipemia removal from samples designated for glucose, sodium, potassium, chlorides, phosphates, magnesium, CK-MB, ALP, GGT, total protein, albumin, CRP and troponin T measurements. High speed centrifugation should be used for lipemia removal instead for glucose, potassium, phosphates, magnesium, CK-MB, ALP, GGT, albumin, CRP and TnT measurements.