Impact of potassium test sample rejections on routine laboratory service, South Africa

Background

Accurate potassium measurements are necessary for effective clinical management of hyperkalaemia. Pre-analytical factors may affect laboratory measurements, leading to erroneous results and inappropriate patient management and negatively impact the efficiency and finances of laboratories and hospitals.

Objective

This study evaluated the impact of rejected potassium test requests on laboratory service.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective descriptive study to assess potassium test data at a public laboratory in Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa, using samples collected from an academic hospital, peripheral hospitals, and outpatient clinics between January 2018 to December 2018. We assessed the relationship between reasons for rejection and health facility type, as well as financial implications for the laboratory.

Results

The potassium result rejection rate was 15.1% (29 806 samples), out of the 197 405 requests received. The most common reasons for rejection were old sample (> 1 day old) (41.4%; 12 348 rejections) and haemolysis (38.2%; 11 398 rejections). The most frequent reason for rejections at the central, academic hospital was haemolysis (42.0%), while old sample was the most common reason for rejection at peripheral hospitals (43.4%; 4119/9493 requests) and outpatient health facilities (57.2%; 7208/12 605 requests) (p = 0.022). The total cost of potassium sample rejection over the study period was substantial, given the resource constraints in this setting.

Conclusion

Peripheral hospitals and outpatient departments accounted for the majority of rejected potassium testing results, possibly resulting from delays in transportation; causing substantial financial impact on the laboratory. Improved sample collection, handling, and expedited transportation are recommended.

What this study adds

This study highlights the importance of appropriate sample collection and handling and the undesirable consequences of non-adherence to these pre-analytical considerations.

Implications of differences between point-of-care blood gas analyser and laboratory analyser potassium results on hyperkalaemia diagnosis & treatment

BACKGROUND

Hyperkalaemia is managed in the emergency department (ED) following measurement of potassium results by blood gas analysers (BGA) or laboratory analysers (LAB).

AIMS

To determine the prevalence of clinically significant differences between BGA and LAB potassium results and the impact on ED hyperkalaemia management.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of time-matched ED BGA and LAB potassium samples from 2019 to 2020 (taken within 15 min, one or both results ≥6.0 mmol/L). Mean differences and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were determined for pairs with one or both results ≥6.0 mmol/L and a separate 500 consecutive sample pairs.

RESULTS

Four hundred eighty-eight matched BGA and LAB samples met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 201 (41.2%) differed by ≤0.5 mmol/L, 169 (34.6%) included a haemolysed LAB sample, and 12 (2.5%) had an unreportable BGA sample. One hundred six (21.7%) pairs differed by >0.5 mmol/L, and 60/106 (57%) had normal LAB potassium results, but BGA indicated moderate/severe hyperkalaemia (two of these pairs received hyperkalaemia treatment). Of patients with a haemolysed LAB sample, or where pairs differed by >0.5 mmol, 48 were treated with insulin and five (10.4%) experienced hypoglycaemia. Mean differences and LoA for pairs with LAB results <6.0 mmol/L but BGA ≥6.0 mmol/L demonstrated unacceptable agreement, with 18 (25.7%) BGA results exceeding 8.0 mmol/L.

CONCLUSIONS

Potentially significant discordance may occur between BGA and LAB potassium results. Clinicians need to be aware of factors impacting both analytical methods' accuracy (such as poor venepuncture or sample handling, (K) EDTA interference) and undetectable haemolysis with BGA measurements. We recommend BGA hyperkalaemia be confirmed with LAB results using a non-haemolysed sample where time permits.

The cation-leaky hereditary stomatocytosis syndromes: A tale of six proteins

This review concerns a series of dominantly inherited haemolytic anaemias in which the membrane of the erythrocyte 'leaks' the univalent cations, compromising the osmotic stability of the cell. The majority of the conditions are explained by mutations in one of six genes, coding for multispanning membrane proteins of different structure and function. These are: RhAG, coding for an ammonium carrier; SLC4A1, coding for the band 3 anion exchanger; PIEZO1, coding for a mechanosensitive cation channel; GLUT1, coding for a glucose transporter; KCNN4, coding for an internal-calcium-activated potassium channel; and ABCB6, coding for a porphyrin transporter. This review describes the five clinical syndromes associated with genetic defects in these genes and their variable genotype/phenotype relationships.

Order of draw of blood samples affect potassium results without K-EDTA contamination during routine workflow

Introduction

A specific sequence is recommended for filling blood tubes during blood collection to prevent erroneous test results due to carryover of additives. However, requirement of this procedure is still debatable. This study was aimed to investigate the potassium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (K-EDTA) contamination in blood samples taken after a tube containing the additive during routine workflow. The study was also carried out to examine the effect of order of draw on potassium results, regardless of K-EDTA contamination.

Materials and methods

In 388 outpatients, to determine the probability of K-EDTA cross-contamination, blood was drawn sequentially into a serum tube, followed by a tube containing K-EDTA, and by another serum tube. In another 405 outpatients, to evaluate the effect of order of draw blood unrelated to K-EDTA contamination, two serum tube were successively collected. Potassium was measured on Cobas 6000 c501 analyser (Roche Diagnostic GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) by indirect ion selective electrode method.

Results

Of paired samples collected before and after a K-EDTA tube, 24% had a potassium difference of above 0.3 mmol/L. However, no EDTA contamination was detected in these samples as well as 95% confidence intervals (CI) of limits of agreement for calcium were within the allowable error limits based on reference change values. Interestingly, of blood samples drawn successively, 24% had also a difference greater than 0.3 mmol/L for potassium.

Conclusion

Incorrect order of draw using closed blood collection system does not cause K-EDTA contamination, even in routine workflow. However, regardless of K-EDTA contamination, order of draw has significant influence on the potassium results.

Deceptive potassium and magnesium measurements

Potassium and magnesium are important circulating cations and are predominantly intracellular elements. Only a small fraction of these elements is present in extracellular fluids including blood (∼1%). Measurement of the concentration of such small fractions in blood is commonly used to assess and reflect their body content levels. However, some of these measurements can be flawed and a failure to recognise the limitations of these tests may result in misdiagnosis and/or unnecessary follow-up investigations and/or expensive hospital admissions. The focus of this note is three-fold (a) to highlight and discuss separately the less appreciated pitfalls of potassium and magnesium measurements per se, (b) suggestions to identify and rectify these snags and to improve their clinical interpretation, and finally