No abstract

BackgroundThe Jaffe and enzymatic methods are the two most common methods for measuring serum creatinine. The Jaffe method is less expensive than the enzymatic method but is also more susceptible to interferences. Interferences can lead to misdiagnosis but interferences may vary by patient population. The overall risk associated with the Jaffe method depends on the probability of misclassification and the consequences of misclassification. This study assessed the risk associated with the Jaffe method in an outpatient population. We analyzed the discordance rate in the estimated glomerular filtration rate based on serum creatinine measurements obtained by the Jaffe and enzymatic method.MethodsMethod comparison and risk analysis. Five hundred twenty-nine eGFRs obtained by the Jaffe and enzymatic method were compared at four clinical decision limits. We determined the probability of discordance and the consequence of misclassification at each decision limit to evaluate the overall risk.ResultsWe obtained 529 paired observations. Of these, 29 (5.5%) were discordant with respect to one of the decision limits (i.e. 15, 30, 45 or 60 ml/min/1.73m2). The magnitude of the differences (Jaffe result minus enzymatic result) were significant relative to analytical variation in 21 of the 29 (72%) of the discordant results. The magnitude of the differences were not significant relative to biological variation. The risk associated with misclassification was greatest at the 60 ml/min/1.73m2 decision limit because the probability of misclassification and the potential for adverse outcomes were greatest at that decision limit.ConclusionThe Jaffe method is subject to bias due to interfering substances (loss of analytical specificity). The risk of misclassification is greatest at the 60 ml/min/1.73m2 decision limit; however, the risk of misclassification due to bias is much less than the risk of misclassification due to biological variation. The Jaffe method may pose low risk in selected populations if eGFR results near the 60 ml/min/1.73m2 decision limit are interpreted with caution.

Context.-A common laboratory practice is to repeat critical values before reporting the test results to the clinical care provider. This may be an unnecessary step that delays the reporting of critical test results without adding value to the accuracy of the test result.Objectives.-To determine the proportions of repeated chemistry and hematology critical values that differ significantly from the original value as defined by the participating laboratory, to determine the threshold differences defined by the laboratory as clinically significant, and to determine the additional time required to analyze the repeat test.Design.-Participants prospectively reviewed critical test results for 4 laboratory tests: glucose, potassium, white blood cell count, and platelet count. Participants reported the following information: initial and repeated test result; time initial and repeat results were first known to laboratory staff; critical result notification time; if the repeat result was still a critical result; if the repeat result was significantly different from the initial result, as judged by the laboratory professional or policy; significant difference threshold, as defined by the laboratory; the make and model of the instrument used for primary and repeat testing.Results.-Routine, repeat analysis of critical values is a common practice. Most laboratories did not formally define a significant difference between repeat results. Repeated results were rarely considered significantly different. Median repeated times were at least 17 to 21 minutes for 10% of laboratories. Twenty percent of laboratories reported at least 1 incident in the last calendar year of delayed result reporting that clinicians indicated had adversely affected patient care.Conclusion.-Routine repeat analysis of automated chemistry and hematology critical values is unlikely to be clinically useful and may adversely affect patient care.( This Q-Probes study was designed to determine the proportion of repeated critical results, the proportion of