| Literature DB >> 31398868 |
Mariella Dipalo1, Cecilia Gnocchi2, Paola Avanzini2, Roberta Musa2, Martina Di Pietro2, Rosalia Aloe2.
Abstract
Our laboratory performs procalcitonin (PCT) assays on a Brahms KRYPTOR analyzer with the Brahms PCT sensitive Kryptor kit. In this study, we wanted to compare the assays obtained in this way with the ones performed on the LIAISON® XL. From January to May 2017, 171 samples were analyzed, of which 65 from female patients (age: 22-98 years) and 106 from male patients (age: 16-97 years). The PCT determination was performed using the LIAISON® XL and KRYPTOR analyzers, by chemiluminescence (Chemiluminescence immunoassay-CLIA) (LIAISON® BRAHMS PCT® II GEN) and immunofluorescence (Brahms PCT sensitive Kryptor) assay, respectively. For the LIAISON® BRAHMS PCT® II GEN, 52% of the results were placed between 0.0 and 0.5 ng/mL, 18% between 0.5 and 2.0 ng/mL, and 30% between 2.0 and 100 ng/mL; the mean was 4.09 ng/mL, the median 0.456 ng/mL, the maximum value 97.2 ng/mL, and the minimum value 0.02 ng/mL. For the Brahms PCT sensitive Kryptor, 55% of the results were positioned between 0.0 and 0.5 ng/mL, 21% between 0.5 and 2.0 ng/mL, and 24% between 2.0 and 100 ng/mL; the mean was 3.72 ng/mL, the median 0.39 ng/mL, the maximum value 103 ng/mL, and the minimum value 0.01 ng/mL. The mean of the results obtained with the two methods showed no significant differences (3.717 for Kryptor and 4.094 for LIAISON®). PCT assay with Brahms reagents, both on the Kryptor and LIAISON®XL platforms, offers excellent performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity.Entities:
Keywords: PCT; antibiotic; chemiluminescence; immunoassay; immunofluorescence; procalcitonin; sepsis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31398868 PMCID: PMC6787683 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics9030094
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Departments that requested procalcitonin (PCT).
| PCT Requests by Department | ||
|---|---|---|
| Departments | PCT Requests | % |
| Long-term Hospitalization | 3756 | 23% |
| Intensive Care Unit | 1906 | 12% |
| Medical Immunology Department | 1394 | 9% |
| Internal Medicine | 1272 | 8% |
| Surgery | 1003 | 6% |
| Medical Therapy Department | 975 | 6% |
| Cardiology | 923 | 6% |
| Hematology | 908 | 6% |
| Pneumology | 680 | 4% |
| Emergency Medicine–Emergency Room (ER) | 675 | 4% |
| Orthopedy | 630 | 4% |
| Nephrology | 459 | 3% |
| Medical Oncology | 408 | 3% |
| Others | 397 | 2% |
| Urology | 283 | 2% |
| Transplants | 263 | 2% |
| Neurology | 151 | 1% |
Figure 1(a) Liaison Brahms PCT II Gen and (b) Brahms PCT sensitive Kryptor immunofluorescence test mechanism.
Characteristics of used reagents.
| Characteristics of Used Reagents | ||
|---|---|---|
| LIAISON® BRAHMS PCT® GEN | Brahms PCT Sensitive Kryptor | |
| Number of tests | 100 | 100 |
| Principle | sandwich 1 step | sandwich 1 step |
| Signal | Isoluminol | TRACE (time-resolved amplified cryptate emission) |
| Specimen | Serum, plasma | Serum, plasma |
| Volume of sample | 100 | 50 |
| Frequency of calibration | 56 days | 7 days |
| Functional Sensitivity or Limit of Quantitation (LoQ) | 0.04 ng/mL | 0.06 ng/mL |
| Limit of Detection (LoD) | 0.02 ng/mL | 0.02 ng/mL |
| Limit of Blank (LoB) | ||
| Measuring Range ng/mL | 0.02–100 | 0.02–50 ng/mL |
| Sample Dilution | Automatic | Automatic |
| Calibrator and Integral Stability | 12 weeks | 14 days |
| Time to first results | 16 min | 19 min |
Regarding the statistical analysis, MedCalc 18.6 software (MedCalc bvba software, Ostend, Belgium) was used.
Figure 2Analysis results. (A) Summary table of our data: mean (95% CI), median (95% CI), minimum and maximum of the two methods; (B) Linear regression line independent of the sample distribution Passing–Bablok (PB): y = −0.0102086 + 1.172143x (Pearson coefficient = 0.99); (C) PB residual chart; (D) Comparison of Bland–Altman graph with representation of the difference, in terms of absolute value, between the two measurements shown according to the mean of the measurements; (E) Mountain plot graph or representation of the empirically folded cumulative distribution, obtained by calculating the distribution of percentiles relative to the differences between the two methods placed in an orderly manner.
Figure 3Patient 1 (Internal medicine, man 78 years old).
Figure 4Patient 2 (Long-term hospitalization, man 83 years old).
Figure 5Patient 3 (Medical oncology, woman 55 years old).