Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
Clin Chem. 2012 Feb;58(2):391-401. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2011.172288. Epub 2011 Dec 13.

Specificity characteristics of 7 commercial creatinine measurement procedures by enzymatic and Jaffe method principles.

Author information

  • 1Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Rochester, NY, USA. ngreenbe@frontier.com

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Standardized calibration does not change a creatinine measurement procedure's susceptibility to potentially interfering substances.

METHODS:

We obtained individual residual serum or plasma samples (n = 365) from patients with 19 different disease categories associated with potentially interfering substances and from healthy controls. Additional sera at 0.9 mg/dL (80 μmol/L) and 3.8 mg/dL (336 μmol/L) creatinine were supplemented with acetoacetate, acetone, ascorbate, and pyruvate. We measured samples by 4 enzymatic and 3 Jaffe commercially available procedures and by a liquid chromatography/isotope dilution/mass spectrometry measurement procedure against which biases were determined.

RESULTS:

The number of instances when 3 or more results in a disease category had biases greater than the limits of acceptability was 28 of 57 (49%) for Jaffe and 14 of 76 (18%) for enzymatic procedures. For the aggregate group of 59 diabetes samples with increased β-hydroxybutyrate, glucose, or glycosylated hemoglobin (Hb A(1c)), the enzymatic procedures had 10 biased results of 236 (4.2%) compared with 89 of 177 (50.3%) for the Jaffe procedures, and these interferences were highly procedure dependent. For supplemented sera, interferences were observed in 11 of 24 (46%) of groups for Jaffe and 8 of 32 (25%) of groups for enzymatic procedures and were different at low or high creatinine concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS:

There were differences in both magnitude and direction of bias among measurement procedures, whether enzymatic or Jaffe. The influence of interfering substances was less frequent with the enzymatic procedures, but no procedure was unaffected. The details of implementation of a method principle influenced its susceptibility to potential interfering substances.

PMID:
22166253
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for HighWire
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk