Background

Haemolysis is a common occurrence in blood sample collection¹, the severity of which may compromise the quality of laboratory test results. Many factors may cause haemolysis of blood samples and these include method of blood collection, method of emptying into container, blood anticoagulant ratio, transportation methods and blood sample storage among others. Methods of blood collection are very vital to ensuring quality results from the laboratory, especially for intracellular analytes². Most times, the method of sample collection is overlooked to the detriment of quality of blood sample and patient care. This is important as haemolysis releases highly concentrated intracellular analytes into the plasma: analytes like potassium, magnesium, phosphate, lactate dehydrogenase among others, ³ have been found to increase in plasma due to haemolysed. Most times in our laboratories and hospitals the visual assessment of the degree of haemolysis is the criteria used to reject haemolysed blood sample. Studies have shown that about 70% of blood sample rejection in our laboratories is due to haemolysis^4, and this to a reasonable extent depends on the degree of haemolysis which determines the level of effect of these intracellular substances released into plasma⁵.

1. Wan Azman WN, Omar J, Koon TS, Tuan Ismail TS. Hemolyzed Specimens: Major Challenge for Identifying and Rejecting Specimens in Clinical Laboratories. Oman Med J. 2019; 34(2):94–98.
2. Bowen RAR, Remaley AT. Interferences from blood collection tube components on clinical chemistry assays. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2014; 24:31-44
3. Heins M, Hell W, Withold W. Storage of serum or whole blood samples? Effects of time and temperature on 22 serum analytes. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1995, 33: 231-238.
4. Lippi G, Blanckaert N, Bonini P, Green S, Kitchen S, Palicka V, et al. Haemolysis: an overview of the leading cause of unsuitable specimens in clinical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008; 46(6):764-772.
5. Carraro P, Servidio G, Plebani M. Hemolyzed specimens: a reason for rejection or a clinical challenge? Clin Chem 2000. Feb; 46(2):306-307.
6. Mancuso JE, Jayaraman A, Ristenpart WD. Centrifugation-induced release of ATP from red blood cells. PLOS ONE 2018;13(9): e0203270.
7. Heireman L, Van Geel P, Musger L, Heylen E, Uyttenbroeck W, Mahieu B. Causes, consequences and management of sample hemolysis in the clinical laboratory. Clin Biochem 2017; 50(18): 1317-1322.
8. Lippi G, Avanzini P, Cervellin G. Prevention of hemolysis in blood samples collected from intravenous catheters. Clin Biochem2013; 46(7-8):561-4.
9. Asirvatham JR, Moses V, Bjornson L. Errors in potassium measurement: a laboratory perspective for the clinician. N Am J Med Sci. 2013; 5(4):255–259.
10. Moss G, Staunton C. Blood flow, needle size and hemolysis. Examining an old wives’ tale, N Engl J Med 1970;282(17):967.
11. Haseler LJ, Sibbitt RR, Sibbitt WL Jr, Michael AA, Gasparovic CM, Bankhurst AD. Syringe and needle size, syringe type, vacuum generation, and needle control in aspiration procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011; 34(3):590–600.
12. Carraro P., Servidio P, Plebani M. Haemolyzed specimens: a reason for rejection or clinical challenge? Clin Chem 2000; 46: 306-307.
13. Guder W. Haemolysis as an influence and interference factor in clinical chemistry. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1986; 24: 125-126.
14. Dimeski G. Interference testing. Clin Biochem Rev 2008; 29(8): 43-48.
15. Lippi G, Fontana R, Avanzini P, Sandei F, Ippolito L. Influence of spurious haemolysis on blood gas analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013; 51(8):1651-1654.
16. Koseoglu M, Hur A, Atay A, Cuhadar S. Effects of hemolysis interferences on routine biochemistry parameters. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2011; 21(1):79-85.

Dr Allison Frederick Igila

Faculty of Basic Health Sciences, University of Port-Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria