medigraphic.com
ISSN 2500-7106 (Electronic)
ISSN 0123-2576 (Print)
Medicina & Laboratorio

2020, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Medicina & Laboratorio 2020; 24 (2)

Comparison of hematological parameters and cellular morphology in blood samples with EDTA K2 and EDTA K3

Jaramillo-Arbeláez PE, Zapata-Bailarín J, Mesa-Vásquez YC, Ochoa-Ochoa M, Arévalo-Acosta KL

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 131-140
PDF size: 191.84 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction. EDTA is the anticoagulant of choice in hematology laboratories for the conservation of whole blood samples. There are two types, K2 EDTA and K3 EDTA, and their difference lies in the amount of potassium molecules. Some guidelines suggest that there are differences between K2 and K3 EDTA for the blood analysis process. However, with the new collection tubes offered by the commercial suppliers, it is not clear if in fact there is a difference between the two anticoagulants that would result in changes in blood parameters and cell morphology. Objective. To compare leukocyte counts, hemoglobin, hematocrit, mean corpuscular volume, platelets and cell morphology in peripheral blood samples collected with K2 EDTA and K3 EDTA, at different times (0, 1 and 2 hours). Materials and methods. A quasi-experimental, multivariate, multifactorial study was carried out, with anticoagulated blood as the unit of analysis, either with K2 EDTA or K3 EDTA, extracted from 53 subjects through a non-probabilistic sampling for convenience. Results. There was no statistically significant difference when comparing results of the peripheral blood smear and the quantitative hematological parameters using K2 or K3 EDTA. Conclusion. The use of either K2 EDTA or K3 EDTA as the anticoagulant of choice, when processing samples within a suitable time after their collection, proved equally satisfactory for both quantitative and morphological parameters.


REFERENCES

  1. Palma G. Hemograma electrónico (automatizado) “Su evaluación”. Rosario, Argentina: Laboratorio Central Hospital Italiano-IBC; 2013. Acceso 18 de junio de 2013. Disponible en http://www.ibcrosario.com.ar/articulos/HemogramaElectronicoSuEvaluacion. html.

  2. Berrío-Calle M, Correa-Correa MC, Jiménez-Fernández ME. El hemograma: análisis e interpretación con las tres generaciones. Medellin; Universidad de Antioquia. 2003. p. 183.

  3. Quiroz-Arias C. Errores preanalíticos en el laboratorio clínico de un hospital de tercer nivel: prueba piloto. Salud Uninorte 2010;26:189-200.

  4. ISO/TS 22367. Medical Laboratories: Reduction of error through risk management and continual improvement. Geneva, Switzerland: The International Organization for Standardization 2008. p. 10. 2016. Acceso 20 de abril de 2018. Disponible en https://www.iso.org/obp/ ui/#iso:std:iso:ts:22367:ed-1:v1:en.

  5. Martínez-Llamas MS, López-Barba J, Hijano- Villegas S, Orgaz-Morales T, Díaz-Portillo J. Actualización de la fase preanalítica de los laboratorios clínicos del hospital “Cruz Roja” del INGESA de Ceuta. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria 2007. p. 65. Acceso 11 de abril de 2018. Disponible en http://www. ingesa.mscbs.gob.es/estadEstudios/docum- Publica/pdf/actualzFasePreanalitica.pdf.

  6. Segura-Egea JJ , Jiménez-Rubio Manzanares A, Llamas-Cadaval R, Jiménez-Planas A. El ácido etilen diamino tetraacético (EDTA) y su uso en endodoncia. Endodoncia 1997;15:90-97.

  7. Morán-Villatoro L. Obtención de muestras sanguíneas de calidad analítica : mejoría contínua de la etapa preanalítica. Chiapas, México; Editorial Médica Panamericana. 2001. p. 184.

  8. Palmer L, Briggs C, McFadden S, Zini G, Burthem J, Rozenberg G, et al. ICSH recommendations for the standardization of nomenclature and grading of peripheral blood cell morphological features. Int J Lab Hematol 2015;37:287- 303. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.12327.

  9. Koepke J, Van Assendelft O, Brindza L, Davis B, Fernández B, Gewirtz A. Reference leukocyte (WBC) differential count (proportional) and evaluation of instrumental methods; approved standard. CLSI document H20-A2. Pennsylvania: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2014. 2nd ed. p.11-16. Acceso 17 de junio de 2018. Disponible en https://clsi.org/media/ 1400/h20a2_sample.pdf.

  10. Nipro Medical Corporation. Productos división laboratorio. Tubos Vacuette. Bogotá, Colombia: NIPRO; 2017. p. 42. Acceso 13 de mayo de 2018. Disponible en https://disproquilab. com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ CATALOGO-GNRAL-NIPRO.pdf.

  11. Siemens Healthineers. ADVIA 2120i Hematology System with Autoslide. Technical specifications. Erlangen, Germany: Siemens Healthineers. p. 53. Acceso 02 de junio de 2018. Disponible en https://www.siemens- healthineers.com/hematology/systems/ advia-2120-hematology-system-with-autoslide.

  12. Foucar K, Chabot-Richards D, Czuchlewski D, Hunt-Karner K, Reichard KK, Vasef MA, et al. Diagnostic pathology: blood and bone marrow. New Mexico; Elsevier. 2017. p. 976.

  13. Retamales-Castelletto E. Recomendaciones para la interpretación del hemograma: serie blanca, roja y plaquetaria. Santiago de Chile: Instituto de Salud Pública, Ministerio de Salud; 2015. p. 24. Acceso 03 de abril de 2018. Disponible en https://interlab.mx/pdf/interes/ inter-hemograma.pdf.

  14. Mehmood R, Muhammed RK, Hussain S, Sana A. Evaluation of di-potassium and tri-potassium EDTA evacuated tubes for routine haematological testing. J Clin Lab Anal 2018;32:e22188. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.22188.

  15. Romero A, Perea JM, González J, Tronchoni J. Utilización de tubos para recuento hematológico de polipropileno con EDTA 2K como anticoagulante en un servicio de hematología. Enferm Clin 2001;11:18-22. https://doi. org/10.1016/S1130-8621(01)73683-2.

  16. Gari MA. The comparison of glass EDTA versus plastic EDTA blood-drawing tubes for complete blood count. Middle-East J Sci Res 2008;3:32-35.

  17. Wiwanitkit V. Effect of EDTA K2 and K3 anticoagulants on the complete blood count measured by hematological analyzer. Arch Hell Med 2011;28:131-132.

  18. Arkin C, Ernst D, Marlar A, Parish G, Szamosi D, Wiseman J. Tubes and additives for venous blood specimen collection; approved standard. CLSI document H01-A5. Pennsylvania: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2003. 5th ed. p.11-16. Acceso 14 de mayo de 2018. Disponible en http://demo.nextlab.ir/getattachment/ aa8e592f-ed2b-459f-a9a8-1e8c- 694de812/CLSI-H1-A5.aspx.

  19. Ernst DJ, Ballance LO, Calam RR, McCall R, Szamosi DI, Tyndall L. Procedures and devices for the collection of diagnostic capillary blood specimens; approved standard. CLSI document GP42-A6. Pennsylvania: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2008. 6th ed. p. 25. Acceso 15 de mayo de 2018. Disponible en https://clsi.org/media/1371/ gp42a6_sample.pdf.

  20. Dubrowny N, Armstrong E, Berube J, Bowen R, Chan Y, Hesselgesser D, et al. Tubes and additives for venous and capillary blood specimen collection; approved standard. CLSI document GP39-A6. Pennsylvania: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2010. 6th ed. 17 p. Acceso 15 de mayo de 2018. Disponible en https://clsi.org/media/1374/ gp39a6_sample.pdf.

  21. Dubrowny N, Armstrong E, Berube J, Bowen R, Chan YW, Hesselgesser D, et al. Validation and verification of tubes for venous and capillary blood specimen collection; approved guideline. CLSI document GP34-A. Pennsylvania: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2010. 44 p. Acceso 16 de mayo de 2018. Disponible en https://clsi.org/media/1376/ gp34a_sample.pdf.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com