SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Medical Biochemistry / 2020 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3

The effects of chlorhexidine-based preservative tubes on routine urinalysis stability

İnanç KARAKOYUN
Fatma Demet ARSLAN
Anıl BAYSOY
Murat AKŞİT
Ayfer ÇOLAK
Banu ISBİLEN BASOK
Pages
155–160
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Although storage in chlorhexidine-based preservative tubes has limited effects on chemical strip analysis, these tubes may not be considered optimal for microscopic examination.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: To evaluate the effects of chlorhexidine-based preservative tubes on analytes for routine urinalysis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Urine specimen (n=84) aliquots in polystyrene tubes (PS) with no additives (Fıratmed Co.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Although storage in chlorhexidine-based preservative tubes has limited effects on chemical strip analysis, these tubes may not be considered optimal for microscopic examination.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of chlorhexidine-based preservative tubes on analytes for routine urinalysis. Methods: Urine specimen (n=84) aliquots in polystyrene tubes (PS) with no additives (Fıratmed Co. Ltd., Istanbul, Turkey) and in Becton–Dickinson Vacutainer® Plus Urinalysis Preservative (BD-UAP) tubes (Becton Dickinson Inc., NJ, USA) were analyzed on automatic modular urine analyzer (Dirui Industry, Changchun, China) and the results were compared. Stability was assessed by re-analyzing urine samples in BD-UAP tubes after three and six hours of storage and comparing with initial results. Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated to assess the agreement of results. Results: Squamous epithelial cell and pH agreement between the tubes was moderate (κ=0.60 and 0.58, respectively). Bilirubin, ketone, protein, nitrite, and glucose showed perfect agreement with the PS tube and remained stable for up to six hours in the BD-UAP tube (κ=1.00, 0.92, 0.83, 0.93, 1.00, respectively). Red blood cells, white blood cells, bacteria, blood, and leukocyte esterase showed moderate to substantial stability at six hours (κ=0.56, 0.77, 0.76, 0.87, 0.57, respectively). Conclusion: Although storage in chlorhexidine-based preservative tubes has limited effects on chemical strip analysis, these tubes may not be considered optimal for microscopic examination.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAKOYUN, İ., ARSLAN, F. D., BAYSOY, A., AKŞİT, M., ÇOLAK, A., BASOK, B. I. (2020). The effects of chlorhexidine-based preservative tubes on routine urinalysis stability. International Journal of Medical Biochemistry, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3, 155–160. https://ajindex.com/articles/200284

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Coppens A, Speeckaert M, Delanghe J. The pre-analytical challenges of routine urinalysis. Acta Clin Belg 2010;65(3):182–9
  2. Delanghe J, Speeckaert M. Preanalytical requirements of urinalysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2014;24(1):89–104
  3. Foudraine DE, Bauer MP, Russcher A, Kusters E, Cobbaert CM, van der Beek MT, et al. Use of Automated Urine Microscopy Analysis in Clinical Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection: Defining an Optimal Diagnostic Score in an Academic Medical Center Population. J Clin Microbiol 2018;56(6):e02030–17
  4. Delanghe JR, Speeckaert MM. Preanalytics in urinalysis. Clin Biochem 2016;49(18):1346–50
  5. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Urinalysis; approved guideline–third edition. CLSI document: GP16-A3. Wayne, PA, USA: CLSI; 2009
  6. Ercan M, Akbulut ED, Abuşoğlu S, Yılmaz FM, Oğuz EF, Topçuoğlu C, et al. Stability of urine specimens stored with and without preservatives at room temperature and on ice prior to urinalysis. Clin Biochem 2015;48(13-14):919–22
  7. Daley P, Gill Y, Midodzi W. Comparison of clinical performance of commercial urine growth stabilization products. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2018;92(3):179–82
  8. Kouri T, Vuotari L, Pohjavaara S, Laippala P. Preservation of urine for flow cytometric and visual microscopic testing. Clin Chem 2002;48(6 Pt 1):900–5
  9. Gomes BP, Vianna ME, Zaia AA, Almeida JF, Souza-Filho FJ, Ferraz CC. Chlorhexidine in endodontics. Braz Dent J 2013;24(2):89–102
  10. European Confederation of Laboratory Medicine. European urinalysis guidelines. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 2000;231:1–86
  11. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:37–46
  12. D.G. Altman, Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991
  13. Ekşioğlu MK, Madenci ÖÇ, Yücel N, Elçi A, Turhan B, Orhan G, et al. The effectiveness of BD Vacutainer® Plus Urinalysis Preservative Tubes in preservation of urine for chemical strip analysis and particle counting. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2016;26(2):224–32
  14. Manoni F, Tinello A, Fornasiero L, Hoffer P, Temporin V, Valverde S, et al. Urine particle evaluation: a comparison between the UF-1000i and quantitative microscopy. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48(8):1107–11
  15. Aydin O, Ellidag HY, Eren E, Yilmaz N. High False Positives and False Negatives in Yeast Parameter in an Automated Urine Sediment Analyzer. J Med Biochem 2015;34(3):332–7
  16. Kouri T, Malminiemi O, Penders J, Pelkonen V, Vuotari L, Delanghe J. Limits of pres