BACKGROUND: Blood glucose concentrations are essential in defining diabetes mellitus. Recent guidelines advocate either of two discrete methods for sample collection and processing. One of these involves addition of glycolysis inhibitors, such as sodium fluoride-potassium oxalate (NaF-KOx) to sample collection tubes, whereas the other requires immediate refrigeration and sample separation. AIMS: To examine whether the choice of the preanalytical process has any impact on subsequent glucose determinations. METHODS: 62 healthy men participated in the study during screening for diabetes. Paired venous blood samples were collected in a serum-gel tube and a tube containing NaF-KOx (both Sarstedt, Leicester, UK). Serum was promptly separated from gel tube samples and refrigerated, whereas NaF-KOx samples were not separated until immediately before analysis. Glucose concentrations were determined using an Olympus AU 2700 analyser incorporating an automated hexokinase method. RESULTS: Mean (95% CI) glucose concentration in serum-gel tube samples was 5.2 mmol/l (5.0 to 5.4 mmol/l), whereas the concentration in tubes containing NaF-KOx was 4.9 mmol/l (4.8 to 5.1 mmol/l). A negative bias of 0.23 mmol/l (0.16 to 0.30 mmol/l) and relative negative bias of 4.7 % (3.2% to 6.3%) were observed for samples collected in NaF-KOx tubes, consistent with the combined effects of glycolysis and dilution. CONCLUSIONS: Bias associated with the use of NaF-KOx tubes may have a significant impact on the prevalence of fasting hyperglycaemia, according to current diagnostic criteria. The small but significant difference between preanalytical processes should be considered when screening for the presence of diabetes mellitus.
BACKGROUND:Blood glucose concentrations are essential in defining diabetes mellitus. Recent guidelines advocate either of two discrete methods for sample collection and processing. One of these involves addition of glycolysis inhibitors, such as sodium fluoride-potassium oxalate (NaF-KOx) to sample collection tubes, whereas the other requires immediate refrigeration and sample separation. AIMS: To examine whether the choice of the preanalytical process has any impact on subsequent glucose determinations. METHODS: 62 healthy men participated in the study during screening for diabetes. Paired venous blood samples were collected in a serum-gel tube and a tube containing NaF-KOx (both Sarstedt, Leicester, UK). Serum was promptly separated from gel tube samples and refrigerated, whereas NaF-KOx samples were not separated until immediately before analysis. Glucose concentrations were determined using an Olympus AU 2700 analyser incorporating an automated hexokinase method. RESULTS: Mean (95% CI) glucose concentration in serum-gel tube samples was 5.2 mmol/l (5.0 to 5.4 mmol/l), whereas the concentration in tubes containing NaF-KOx was 4.9 mmol/l (4.8 to 5.1 mmol/l). A negative bias of 0.23 mmol/l (0.16 to 0.30 mmol/l) and relative negative bias of 4.7 % (3.2% to 6.3%) were observed for samples collected in NaF-KOx tubes, consistent with the combined effects of glycolysis and dilution. CONCLUSIONS: Bias associated with the use of NaF-KOx tubes may have a significant impact on the prevalence of fasting hyperglycaemia, according to current diagnostic criteria. The small but significant difference between preanalytical processes should be considered when screening for the presence of diabetes mellitus.
Authors: Saul Genuth; K G M M Alberti; Peter Bennett; John Buse; Ralph Defronzo; Richard Kahn; John Kitzmiller; William C Knowler; Harold Lebovitz; Ake Lernmark; David Nathan; Jerry Palmer; Robert Rizza; Christopher Saudek; Jonathan Shaw; Michael Steffes; Michael Stern; Jaako Tuomilehto; Paul Zimmet Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: B E COPELAND; R P MACFATE; V E MARTENS; H N NAUMANN; G F STEVENSON; F W SUNDERMAN Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 1956-11 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: P H Petersen; D Stöckl; O Blaabjerg; B Pedersen; E Birkemose; L Thienpont; J F Lassen; J Kjeldsen Journal: Clin Chem Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: David B Sacks; David E Bruns; David E Goldstein; Noel K Maclaren; Jay M McDonald; Marian Parrott Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: L G Jørgensen; M Stahl; I Brandslund; P Hyltoft Petersen; K Borch-Johnsen; N de Fine Olivarius Journal: Scand J Clin Lab Invest Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 1.713
Authors: M Stahl; L G Jørgensen; P Hyltoft Petersen; I Brandslund; N de Fine Olivarius; K Borch-Johnsen Journal: Scand J Clin Lab Invest Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 1.713
Authors: Kimberley A Bennett; Lucy M Turner; Sebastian Millward; Simon E W Moss; Ailsa J Hall Journal: Conserv Physiol Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 3.079
Authors: Wisdom P Nakanga; Priscilla Balungi; Anxious J Niwaha; Beverly M Shields; Peter Hughes; Rob C Andrews; Tim J Mc Donald; Moffat J Nyirenda; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 3.240