The customer complained of erroneous results for one icu patient who had undergone a laparoscopic cholecystectomy and was tested for creatinine plus ver.2 (crep2).The erroneous results were reported outside of the laboratory.Prior to the operation, on (b)(6) 2016 the patient had a crep2 result on a c501 instrument of 400++ umol/l.A day after the operation, on (b)(6) 2016, a new sample was obtained and the crep2 result on the c501 instrument was 73 umol/l.The physician questioned the result and sent the sample from (b)(6) 2016 to an external laboratory where the result from a siemens instrument using the picric acid method was 400 umol/l.The customer decided to repeat both samples on (b)(6) 2016.The initial sample from (b)(6) 2016 was tested on a c702 instrument and the creatinine jaffe gen.2 (crej2) result was 486 umol/l.The crep2 repeat result from a c502 instrument was 469 umol/l.The sample from(b)(6) 2016 was repeated on the c702 instrument and the crej2 result was 383 umol/l.The crep2 repeat result from the c502 instrument was 161 umol/l.It was noted that all samples obtained were venous.No adverse event occurred.The patient is being administered the antibiotic sulperazone which is a third generation cephalosporin.It was suggested that there may be an interference with the crep2 assay.It was noted that product labeling for crej2 indicates that antibiotics containing cephalosporin can lead to significant false positive values.This explains the higher crej2 results.Based on the calibration and quality control information, there is no issue with the crep2 reagent or the instrument.
|