Investigating the incremental value of urine sediment reporting in emergency medicine with a Sysmex UN urinalysis system
Author:
Tosi Marco1ORCID, Negrini Davide1ORCID, Celegon Giovanni1, Montagnana Martina1ORCID, Lippi Giuseppe1ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Section of Clinical Biochemistry and School of Medicine , 9286 University of Verona , Verona , Italy
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Urinalysis is widely used and is also frequently requested in emergency situations for screening hypovolemia, urinary tract infections, diabetes, ketoacidosis and hematuria. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of reporting urinary sediment in emergency department specimens with the Sysmex UN system.
Methods
We evaluated urinalyses requested by the emergency department over a three-month period and examined red blood cell count interference, compared leukocyte esterase dipsticks to cytofluorimetric leukocyte count and nitrites to cytofluorimetric bacterial count. We then examined digital microscopy images to identify additional elements of interest or pathology.
Results
We collected 532 cases, 354 with only chemical and cytofluorimetric analysis and 178 with digital microscopy. Automated erythrocyte counting showed a 7 % error rate, mainly false-positive results. Leukocyte esterase had a sensitivity of 88.22 % and specificity of 88.84 % at the lower limit, while nitrites had a sensitivity of 41.06 % and a specificity of 99.38 %. Pathological elements were detected in 126 samples by digital microscopy: 70 had casts, 36 crystals and seven cells with high pathological value.
Conclusions
Evaluation of urine sediments by trained specialists can provide potentially important information even in emergency situations, whereby the pre-analytical phase must always be taken into account.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Reference14 articles.
1. Matsushita, K, van der Velde, M, Astor, BC, Woodward, M, Levey, AS, De Jong, PE, et al., Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium. Association of estimated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in general population cohorts: a collaborative meta-analysis. Lancet 2010;375:2073–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60674-5. 2. Schulz, L, Hoffman, RJ, Pothof, J, Fox, B. Top ten myths regarding the diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infections. J Emerg Med 2016;51:25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.02.009. 3. Kouri, T, Fogazzi, G, Gant, V, Hallander, H, Hofmann, W, Guder, WG. European urinalysis guidelines. Scand J Clin Lab Investig 2000;60:1–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2000.12056993. 4. Manoni, F, Gessoni, G, Fogazzi, GB, Alessio, MG, Ravasio, R, Caleffi, A, et al.. Esame fisico, chimico e morfologico delle urine: raccomandazioni per la fase postanalitica del Gruppo Interdisciplinare Laboratorio e Clinica Apparato Urinario (Giau). Riv Ital Med Lab 2019;15:46–59. https://doi.org/10.23736/s1825-859x.19.00008-2. 5. Manoni, F, Caleffi, A, Gessoni, G, Alessio, MG, Lippi, G, Valverde, S, et al.. L’esame delle urine chimico morfologico e colturale: proposta di linee guida per una procedura standardizzata della fase preanalitica. Riv Ital Med Lab 2011;7:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13631-011-0005-0.
|
|