Length of Sedimentation Reaction in Blood: a Comparison of the Test 1 ESR System with the ICSH Reference Method and the Sedisystem 15

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the automatic TEST 1 ESR system, SIRE Analytical Systems (TEST 1), with that of the the Sedisystem 15, Becton Dickinson (SEDI), and the International Council for Standardization in Haematology reference method (Westergren) for measuring the length of sedimentation reaction in blood (LSRB). This reaction was measured in 418 paired blood samples drawn in K2-EDTA vacuum tubes and specific tubes from patients scheduled for routine LSRB measurement. The TEST 1 system uses micro-sedimentation and quantitative capillary photometry technology, whereas the SEDI uses a CCD camera. For Westergren, a 200 mm column with 3.0 mm internal diameter was used. Compared to Westergren, TEST 1 gives accurate values of LSRB in most of the samples (mean of differences: 0.99 +/- 10.4 mm; 95% CI, -0.807 to 2.78 mm; n =131). Similar results were obtained in the comparison with SEDI (mean of differences: -0.626 +/- 8 mm; 95% CI, -1.756 to 0.5 mm; n = 195). Compared to those of fresh blood samples, LSRB values were significantly lower in 24 h stored samples, either at 4 degrees C (21.5 +/- 2.3 vs. 19.4 +/- 2.2 mm; p (Spearman's coefficient of correlation): 0.981; n = 44) or at room temperature (19.1 +/- 2.5 vs. 16.2 +/- 2.1 mm; p: 0.903; n = 46). In conclusion, TEST 1 is a rapid, reliable system for automatic measurement of LSRB in standard K2-EDTA blood samples. It has a very low imprecision and maintains a good performance in 24 h stored samples. In addition, due to its operational characteristics (60 samples/20 min) it is a suitable tool for clinical laboratories with a high work load as well as for emergency laboratories.

Comparison of TEST 1 with SRS 100 and ICSH reference method for the measurement of the length of sedimentation reaction in blood

“…In agreement with these findings, in the present study, LSRB measurements with the automated TEST 1 analyzer did not differ significantly from measurements using manual and automated Westergren (SRS 100) methods. The bias, agreement limits and correlations found for LSRB measurements by TEST 1 were all comparable to those found by other authors (10)(11)(12)(13)(14). Furthermore, TEST 1 LSRB values were also strongly correlated with the SRS 100 method, with low bias ( Table 2).…”

“…Previous studies have shown that the TEST 1 method gives accurate LSRB measurements compared to manual or automated Westergren methods (10)(11)(12). In agreement with these findings, in the present study, LSRB measurements with the automated TEST 1 analyzer did not differ significantly from measurements using manual and automated Westergren (SRS 100) methods.…”

Determination of the length of sedimentation reaction in blood using the TEST 1 system: comparison with the Sedimatic 100 method, turbidimetric fibrinogen levels, and the influence of M-proteins

“…We found no systematic bias between the two methods, as shown by the 95% confidence interval, which ranges from y0.48 to 0.75 mm/h (limits of agreement y17.0 to 16.9 mm/h). This is in complete agreement with previous studies that have shown similar correlation data with other ICSH-based methods (6,9,11). The LSRB obtained with the two methods was also compared in samples originating from patients with miscellaneous rheumatic disorders (40% rheumatoid arthritis, 15.2% arthritis, 8.8% ankylosing spondylitis, 8% gout arthritis, and 26% other).…”

“…This system has been extensively evaluated in previous studies and has shown good correlation with ICSH recommended methods, fibrinogen levels (as measured by a prothrombin timederived method), and appears to be unaffected by hematocrit (6)(7)(8)(9). In this study, we evaluated the TEST 1 LSRB system.…”

Evaluation of the Ves-Matic Cube 200 Erythrocyte Sedimentation Method

“…This method reduces the analytic time to several minutes and avoids the need for an additional blood sample. Although this method shows good correlation with conventional Westergren and Westergren-based methods, 4,5 it was shown recently that Test 1 is less influenced by the presence of monoclonal proteins than Westergren-based methods 6 and may, in fact, measure only RBC aggregation rather than the entire sedimentation process as determined by the Westergren reference method. 7 In this report, we present the validation of a novel ESR analyzer, the Ves-Matic Cube 200 (Diesse Diagnostica Senese, Siena, Italy), that measures ESR directly from a standard capped EDTA blood sample tube.…”