心包液在罗氏Cobas c702分析仪上的验证:提高临床实验室的标准化和效率

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Shaimaa Maher, Suttida Parnprome, Giancarlo Rodriguez, Erica Fermon, Imir Metushi, Lu Song
{"title":"心包液在罗氏Cobas c702分析仪上的验证:提高临床实验室的标准化和效率","authors":"Shaimaa Maher, Suttida Parnprome, Giancarlo Rodriguez, Erica Fermon, Imir Metushi, Lu Song","doi":"10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The accumulation of fluid in the pericardial sac, known as pericardial effusion, can result from a variety of medical conditions such as infections, injuries, autoimmune diseases, cancer, and renal failure. Accurate and precise biomarker analysis of pericardial fluid may be helpful in identifying the underlying causes of fluid accumulation. While pericardiocentesis is performed to relieve cardiac pressure and prevent tamponade, the diagnostic potential of pericardial fluid remains underutilized. The analysis of key biomarkers in pericardial fluid, such as albumin, amylase, blood urea nitrogen, cholesterol, direct bilirubin, lactate, lactate dehydrogenase, total bilirubin, and total protein can provide valuable insights into the etiology of pericardial effusion. However, pericardial fluid is not currently an approved specimen type for any tests available on automated chemistry analyzers. This study aims to validate the analysis of these key analytes to establish their analytical performance following the guideline form The College of American Pathologists (CAP) for body fluid that includes accuracy, precision, analytical measuring range (AMR), reportable range, sensitivity, specificity, interferences and stability. Methods Residual pericardial specimens originally obtained for cytology analysis were used to evaluate the analytical performance of nine biochemical analytes on the Roche Cobas c702 analyzer. The matrix effects of pericardial fluid on the measurement of the nine analytes were assessed by recovery studies. Samples of pericardial fluid containing various concentrations of an analyte was prepared by spiking a pericardial fluid with a known amount of the analyte in a ratio no less than 9:1 (volume of pericardial fluid to volume of the standard solution). Recovery was calculated by the ratio of the measured and the expected concentration of an analyte. Linearity was established using five samples with various concentrations of an analyte spanning the AMR. Intra and inter-assay precision were determined at three levels (L1, L2, and L3) near the clinical decision level, a lower and a higher level, respectively. Intra-assay was determined by testing each level 20 times, while inter-assay was assessed through quadruplicate(4X) analyses over 5 days. Interference studies assessed the effects of hemoglobin (101, 203, 602, and 1213 mg/dL), bilirubin (5.9, 12.2, 20.1, and 33.3 mg/dL), and triglycerides (120, 478, 1142, and 1707 mg/dL) on the measurement of these analytes. Results Recovery studies showed that values were within the acceptable limits (90% to 110%), showcasing reliable performance in pericardial fluid (Figure 1). Precision at various levels meet the acceptance criteria with coefficient of variation (CV) within 10%. Linearity of each analyte demonstrated a slope of >0.998 for all analytes, exhibiting an excellent linear response for all analytes tested. No significant interference was found for all nine analytes except for direct bilirubin at the levels of hemoglobin, bilirubin, and triglycerides used in the study. Hemolysis and icterus interfered with direct bilirubin. Conclusion This validation study provides the evidence that the performance of the albumin, amylase, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), cholesterol, direct bilirubin, lactate, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), total bilirubin, and total protein assays on the Roche Cobas c702 analyzer are acceptable for pericardial fluid.","PeriodicalId":10690,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A-018 Validation of Pericardial Fluid on the Roche Cobas c702 Analyzer: Enhancing Standardization and Efficiency in Clinical Laboratories\",\"authors\":\"Shaimaa Maher, Suttida Parnprome, Giancarlo Rodriguez, Erica Fermon, Imir Metushi, Lu Song\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background The accumulation of fluid in the pericardial sac, known as pericardial effusion, can result from a variety of medical conditions such as infections, injuries, autoimmune diseases, cancer, and renal failure. Accurate and precise biomarker analysis of pericardial fluid may be helpful in identifying the underlying causes of fluid accumulation. While pericardiocentesis is performed to relieve cardiac pressure and prevent tamponade, the diagnostic potential of pericardial fluid remains underutilized. The analysis of key biomarkers in pericardial fluid, such as albumin, amylase, blood urea nitrogen, cholesterol, direct bilirubin, lactate, lactate dehydrogenase, total bilirubin, and total protein can provide valuable insights into the etiology of pericardial effusion. However, pericardial fluid is not currently an approved specimen type for any tests available on automated chemistry analyzers. This study aims to validate the analysis of these key analytes to establish their analytical performance following the guideline form The College of American Pathologists (CAP) for body fluid that includes accuracy, precision, analytical measuring range (AMR), reportable range, sensitivity, specificity, interferences and stability. Methods Residual pericardial specimens originally obtained for cytology analysis were used to evaluate the analytical performance of nine biochemical analytes on the Roche Cobas c702 analyzer. The matrix effects of pericardial fluid on the measurement of the nine analytes were assessed by recovery studies. Samples of pericardial fluid containing various concentrations of an analyte was prepared by spiking a pericardial fluid with a known amount of the analyte in a ratio no less than 9:1 (volume of pericardial fluid to volume of the standard solution). Recovery was calculated by the ratio of the measured and the expected concentration of an analyte. Linearity was established using five samples with various concentrations of an analyte spanning the AMR. Intra and inter-assay precision were determined at three levels (L1, L2, and L3) near the clinical decision level, a lower and a higher level, respectively. Intra-assay was determined by testing each level 20 times, while inter-assay was assessed through quadruplicate(4X) analyses over 5 days. Interference studies assessed the effects of hemoglobin (101, 203, 602, and 1213 mg/dL), bilirubin (5.9, 12.2, 20.1, and 33.3 mg/dL), and triglycerides (120, 478, 1142, and 1707 mg/dL) on the measurement of these analytes. Results Recovery studies showed that values were within the acceptable limits (90% to 110%), showcasing reliable performance in pericardial fluid (Figure 1). Precision at various levels meet the acceptance criteria with coefficient of variation (CV) within 10%. Linearity of each analyte demonstrated a slope of >0.998 for all analytes, exhibiting an excellent linear response for all analytes tested. No significant interference was found for all nine analytes except for direct bilirubin at the levels of hemoglobin, bilirubin, and triglycerides used in the study. Hemolysis and icterus interfered with direct bilirubin. Conclusion This validation study provides the evidence that the performance of the albumin, amylase, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), cholesterol, direct bilirubin, lactate, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), total bilirubin, and total protein assays on the Roche Cobas c702 analyzer are acceptable for pericardial fluid.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10690,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical chemistry\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.018\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.018","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

心包积液可由多种疾病引起,如感染、损伤、自身免疫性疾病、癌症和肾衰竭。心包积液的准确和精确的生物标志物分析可能有助于确定积液的根本原因。虽然心包穿刺是为了减轻心脏压力和防止心包填塞,但心包液的诊断潜力仍未得到充分利用。心包液中关键生物标志物如白蛋白、淀粉酶、血尿素氮、胆固醇、直接胆红素、乳酸、乳酸脱氢酶、总胆红素和总蛋白的分析可为心包积液的病因提供有价值的见解。然而,心包液目前不是一种经批准的标本类型,可用于自动化化学分析仪的任何测试。本研究旨在验证这些关键分析物的分析,以建立其分析性能,包括准确性,精密度,分析测量范围(AMR),报告范围,灵敏度,特异性,干扰和稳定性,遵循美国病理学会(CAP)的体液指南。方法采用原用于细胞学分析的残余心包标本,在罗氏Cobas c702分析仪上评价9种生化分析物的分析性能。通过恢复研究评估了心包液对9种分析物测量的基质效应。用已知量的分析物按不小于9:1的比例(心包液的体积与标准溶液的体积之比)在心包液中加入尖刺,制备含有不同浓度分析物的心包液样品。回收率由被测物浓度与预期分析物浓度之比计算。线性建立使用5个样品不同浓度的分析物跨越AMR。在接近临床决策水平、较低水平和较高水平的三个水平(L1、L2和L3)上分别确定测定内和测定间的精度。分析内通过测试每个水平20次来确定,而分析间通过在5天内进行四次重复(4X)分析来评估。干扰研究评估了血红蛋白(101、203、602和1213 mg/dL)、胆红素(5.9、12.2、20.1和33.3 mg/dL)和甘油三酯(120、478、1142和1707 mg/dL)对这些分析物测量的影响。结果恢复研究显示数值在可接受范围内(90%至110%),在心包液中表现可靠(图1)。各级精密度均符合验收标准,变异系数(CV)在10%以内。每种分析物的线性斜率为0.998,对所有被测分析物表现出良好的线性响应。除了研究中使用的血红蛋白、胆红素和甘油三酯水平的直接胆红素外,所有九种分析物均未发现显著干扰。溶血和黄疸干扰直接胆红素。结论罗氏Cobas c702型心包液白蛋白、淀粉酶、血尿素氮(BUN)、胆固醇、直接胆红素、乳酸、乳酸脱氢酶(LDH)、总胆红素和总蛋白检测的性能可接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A-018 Validation of Pericardial Fluid on the Roche Cobas c702 Analyzer: Enhancing Standardization and Efficiency in Clinical Laboratories
Background The accumulation of fluid in the pericardial sac, known as pericardial effusion, can result from a variety of medical conditions such as infections, injuries, autoimmune diseases, cancer, and renal failure. Accurate and precise biomarker analysis of pericardial fluid may be helpful in identifying the underlying causes of fluid accumulation. While pericardiocentesis is performed to relieve cardiac pressure and prevent tamponade, the diagnostic potential of pericardial fluid remains underutilized. The analysis of key biomarkers in pericardial fluid, such as albumin, amylase, blood urea nitrogen, cholesterol, direct bilirubin, lactate, lactate dehydrogenase, total bilirubin, and total protein can provide valuable insights into the etiology of pericardial effusion. However, pericardial fluid is not currently an approved specimen type for any tests available on automated chemistry analyzers. This study aims to validate the analysis of these key analytes to establish their analytical performance following the guideline form The College of American Pathologists (CAP) for body fluid that includes accuracy, precision, analytical measuring range (AMR), reportable range, sensitivity, specificity, interferences and stability. Methods Residual pericardial specimens originally obtained for cytology analysis were used to evaluate the analytical performance of nine biochemical analytes on the Roche Cobas c702 analyzer. The matrix effects of pericardial fluid on the measurement of the nine analytes were assessed by recovery studies. Samples of pericardial fluid containing various concentrations of an analyte was prepared by spiking a pericardial fluid with a known amount of the analyte in a ratio no less than 9:1 (volume of pericardial fluid to volume of the standard solution). Recovery was calculated by the ratio of the measured and the expected concentration of an analyte. Linearity was established using five samples with various concentrations of an analyte spanning the AMR. Intra and inter-assay precision were determined at three levels (L1, L2, and L3) near the clinical decision level, a lower and a higher level, respectively. Intra-assay was determined by testing each level 20 times, while inter-assay was assessed through quadruplicate(4X) analyses over 5 days. Interference studies assessed the effects of hemoglobin (101, 203, 602, and 1213 mg/dL), bilirubin (5.9, 12.2, 20.1, and 33.3 mg/dL), and triglycerides (120, 478, 1142, and 1707 mg/dL) on the measurement of these analytes. Results Recovery studies showed that values were within the acceptable limits (90% to 110%), showcasing reliable performance in pericardial fluid (Figure 1). Precision at various levels meet the acceptance criteria with coefficient of variation (CV) within 10%. Linearity of each analyte demonstrated a slope of >0.998 for all analytes, exhibiting an excellent linear response for all analytes tested. No significant interference was found for all nine analytes except for direct bilirubin at the levels of hemoglobin, bilirubin, and triglycerides used in the study. Hemolysis and icterus interfered with direct bilirubin. Conclusion This validation study provides the evidence that the performance of the albumin, amylase, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), cholesterol, direct bilirubin, lactate, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), total bilirubin, and total protein assays on the Roche Cobas c702 analyzer are acceptable for pericardial fluid.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical chemistry
Clinical chemistry 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
212
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Chemistry is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that is the premier publication for the science and practice of clinical laboratory medicine. It was established in 1955 and is associated with the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM). The journal focuses on laboratory diagnosis and management of patients, and has expanded to include other clinical laboratory disciplines such as genomics, hematology, microbiology, and toxicology. It also publishes articles relevant to clinical specialties including cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, genetics, immunology, infectious diseases, maternal-fetal medicine, neurology, nutrition, oncology, and pediatrics. In addition to original research, editorials, and reviews, Clinical Chemistry features recurring sections such as clinical case studies, perspectives, podcasts, and Q&A articles. It has the highest impact factor among journals of clinical chemistry, laboratory medicine, pathology, analytical chemistry, transfusion medicine, and clinical microbiology. The journal is indexed in databases such as MEDLINE and Web of Science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信