Article Sidebar

PDF
Date Published: 22/06/2022
Abstract Views: 787
Views PDF: 716
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v515i1.2694
Issue
Vol. 515 No. 1 (2022)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Thị Quỳnh Nga, Đào ., Thị Chi Mai, T. ., & Huệ Quyên, L. . (2022). EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF ROCHE JAFFE AND ENZYMATIC CREATININE METHODS ON COBAS C503 CHEMISTRY AUTO-ANALYZER. Vietnam Medical Journal, 515(1). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v515i1.2694

EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF ROCHE JAFFE AND ENZYMATIC CREATININE METHODS ON COBAS C503 CHEMISTRY AUTO-ANALYZER

Đào Thị Quỳnh Nga1,, Trần Thị Chi Mai1,2, Lương Huệ Quyên1
1 Vietnam National Children's Hospital
2 Hanoi Medical University

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the analytical performance characteristics of the Jaffe and enzymatic methods for plasma creatinine measurement. Methods: Two original creatinine methods, Jaffe and enzymatic, were evaluated on Roche C503 automated analyzer via limit of quantitation, linearity, intra-assay and inter-assay precision, and comparability in plasma samples. Method comparison using patient samples according to CLSI guideline were performed on 100 plasma samples by analyzing on the same autoanalyzer. Results: Enzymatic method had a lower LOQ than Jaffe method, values at 8.2 µmol/L and 25.8 µmol/L respectively. Enzymatic method was linear up to 1512 µmol/L and Jaffe method was linear up to 1487 µmol/L. The intra-assay and inter-assay precision data were acceptable in both methods when using CLIA criteria. The accuracy of both methods was under desirable level, the recovery of QC and real patient samples was in range of 90- 110%. The high correlations were determined between two methods (r = 0,999). However, results of two method were not compatible. Jaffe method gave the higher results than enzymatic method, especially at the low concentrations. Conclusion: Both Jaffe and enzymatic methods were found to meet the analytical performance requirement in routine use. However, enzymatic method was found to have better performance in low creatinine levels.

Article Details

Keywords

plasma creatinine, enzymatic method, method validation, method comparison

References

1. Laterza OF, Price CP, Scott MG. Cystatin C: An Improved Estimator of Glomerular Filtration Rate? Clinical Chemistry. 2002;48(5):699-707.
2. Vassalotti JA, Stevens LA, Levey AS. Testing for Chronic Kidney Disease: A Position Statement from the National Kidney Foundation. American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 2007;50(2):169-180.
3. Stevens LA, Coresh J, Greene T, Levey AS. Assessing Kidney Function — Measured and Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(23):2473-2483.
4. Perrone RD, Madias NE, Levey AS. Serum creatinine as an index of renal function: new insights into old concepts. Clin Chem. 1992;38(10):1933-1953.
5. Myers GL. Recommendations for Improving Serum Creatinine Measurement: A Report from the Laboratory Working Group of the National Kidney Disease Education Program. Clinical Chemistry. 2006;52(1):5-18.
6. Peake M, Whiting M. Measurement of serum creatinine--current status and future goals. Clin Biochem Rev. 2006;27(4):173-184.
7. Roche Diagnostics package insert. CREP2 Creatinine Plus Ver.2. Enzymatic method. Roche Cobas c503.
8. Roche Diagnostics package insert. CREJ2 Creatinine Jaffé Gen.2. Jaffe method. Roche/Hitachi Cobas c503.
9. CLIA Requirements for Analytical Quality. https://www.westgard.com/clia.htm.
10. Ricos C, Alvarez V, Cava F, Garcia-Lario JV, Hernandez A, Jimenez CV, Minchinela J, Perich C, Simon M. Current databases on biologic variation: pros, cons and progress. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1999; 59:491-500. This database was last updated in 2014.