Menu

rss
J Clin Pathol 64:1019-1020 doi:10.1136/jclinpath-2011-200206
  • Short report

Effect of order of draw of blood samples during phlebotomy on routine biochemistry results

  1. Rousseau Gama1,2
  1. 1Department of Clinical Chemistry, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, UK
  2. 2Research Institute, Healthcare Sciences, Wolverhampton University, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Raashda Sulaiman, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University Hospitals Birmingham, Raddle Barn Lane, Birmingham B29 6JD, UK; raashda3{at}aol.com

  1. Contributors RAS wrote the protocol, appeared before the ethics committee, analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. MPC analysed the samples in the lab. SJW performed the phlebotomy. NO assisted in recruitment of volunteers and taking consent. CF contributed to the protocol and reviewed the draft. RG reviewed the protocol, supervised the study, and reviewed and edited the manuscript.

  • Accepted 21 June 2011
  • Published Online First 21 July 2011

Abstract

Aim To investigate whether incorrect order of draw of blood samples during phlebotomy causes in vitro potassium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid EDTA (kEDTA) contamination of blood samples.

Methods Serum kEDTA, potassium, calcium, magnesium, alkaline phosphatase, zinc and iron concentrations were measured in blood samples drawn before and after collecting blood into kEDTA containing sample tubes by an experienced phlebotomist using the Sarstedt Safety Monovette system.

Results EDTA was undetectable in all samples. The concentrations of other analytes were similar in blood samples drawn before and after collection of the EDTA blood sample.

Conclusion Order of draw of blood samples using the Sarstedt Safety Monovette system has no effect on serum biochemistry results, when samples are taken by an experienced phlebotomist.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Coventry and Warwickshire Research Ethics Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF
  4. All Versions of this Article:
    1. jclinpath-2011-200206v1
    2. 64/11/1019 most recent

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Social bookmarking

Register for free content


Free sample
This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of JCP.
View free sample issue >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.