背景:本研究旨在比较高速离心的脂血去除效率,脂质清除剂,和稀释生化分析物。
方法:我们在急诊实验室收集了30例血脂血浆,并将其分为4份。通过高速离心去除血脂症,脂质清除剂,稀释,和超速离心,然后通过AU5800分析仪测量分析物。以超离心为参考,其他三种方法的效率根据偏差进行评估。
结果:当使用高速离心去除脂血,DBIL(18.62%),镁(6.09%)不能满足标准。当使用脂质清除剂去除脂血时,CRP(-86.70%),TP(-8.29%),CKMB(-44.85%),DBIL(37.96%),不建议Glu(4.20%)和磷酸盐(14.32%)作为脂质清除剂。对于稀释,近一半的分析物可以满足标准,包括AMY(2.41%),CRP(5.54%),ALT(2.85%),GGTL(-1.73%),ALP(-0.04%),Glu(-0.84%),LDH(0.06%),CK(0.68%),BUN(3.80%),CREA(-1.54%),UA(5.42%),和镁(0.43%)。
结论:两种脂质去除方法均不能满足所有急诊脂质去除检查。这一发现表明,在临床实验室中清除血脂应基于特征和测试方法。
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the lipemia removal efficiency of highspeed centrifugation, lipid scavengers, and dilution for biochemical analytes.
METHODS: We collected 30 cases of lipemic plasma in an emergency laboratory and divided them into 4 aliquots. Lipemia was removed by highspeed centrifugation, lipid scavenger, dilution, and
ultracentrifugation, then analytes were measured by an AU5800 analyzer. Taking
ultracentrifugation as reference, the efficiencies of the other three methods were evaluated based on the deviation.
RESULTS: When highspeed centrifugation was used for lipemia removal, DBIL (18.62%), and Magnesium (6.09%) could not satisfy the criterion. When lipid scavengers were applied to remove lipemia, CRP (-86.70%), TP (-8.29%), CKMB (-44.85%), DBIL (37.96%), Glu (4.20%) and phosphate (14.32%) were not suggested as lipid scavengers. For dilution, nearly half of the analytes could satisfy the criterion, including AMY (2.41%), CRP (5.54%), ALT (2.85%), GGTL (-1.73%), ALP (-0.04%), Glu (-0.84%), LDH (0.06%), CK (0.68%), BUN (3.80%), CREA (-1.54%), UA (5.42%), and magnesium (0.43%).
CONCLUSIONS: Neither of the methods for lipid removal could satisfy all emergency department tests for lipid removal. This finding suggests that removing lipemia in the clinical laboratory should be based on the characteristics and the method of testing.