Search

Context.-Laboratory automation proposes to improve the quality and efficiency of laboratory operations, and may provide a solution to the quality demands and staff shortages faced by today's clinical laboratories. Several vendors offer automation systems in the United States, with both subtle and obvious differences. Arriving at a decision to automate, and the ensuing evaluation of available products, can be time-consuming and challenging. Although considerable discussion concerning the decision to automate has been published, relatively little attention has been paid to the process of evaluating and selecting automation systems. Objective.-To outline a process for evaluating and selecting automation systems as a reference for laboratories contemplating laboratory automation. Design.-Our Clinical Chemistry Laboratory staff recently evaluated all major laboratory automation systems in the United States, with their respective chemistry and immunochemistry analyzers. Our experience is described and organized according to the selection process, the important considerations in clinical chemistry automation, decisions and implementation, and we give conclusions pertaining to this experience. Results.-Including the formation of a committee, work-flow analysis, submitting a request for proposal, site visits, and making a final decision, the process of selecting chemistry automation took approximately 14 months. We outline important considerations in automation design, preanalytical processing, analyzer selection, postanalytical storage, and data management. Conclusions.-Selecting clinical chemistry laboratory automation is a complex, time-consuming process. Laboratories considering laboratory automation may benefit from the concise overview and narrative and tabular suggestions provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The HCMR (Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Registry) is a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded, prospective registry of 2,755 patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) recruited from 44 sites in 6 countries., Objectives: The authors sought to improve risk prediction in HCM by incorporating cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), genetic, and biomarker data., Methods: Demographic and echocardiographic data were collected. Patients underwent CMR including cine imaging, late gadolinium enhancement imaging (LGE) (replacement fibrosis), and T1 mapping for measurement of extracellular volume as a measure of interstitial fibrosis. Blood was drawn for the biomarkers N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (cTnT), and genetic analysis., Results: A total of 2,755 patients were studied. Mean age was 49 ± 11 years, 71% were male, and 17% non-white. Mean ESC (European Society of Cardiology) risk score was 2.48 ± 0.56. Eighteen percent had a resting left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient ≥30 mm Hg. Thirty-six percent had a sarcomere mutation identified, and 50% had any LGE. Sarcomere mutation-positive patients were more likely to have reverse septal curvature morphology, LGE, and no significant resting LVOT obstruction. Those that were sarcomere mutation negative were more likely to have isolated basal septal hypertrophy, less LGE, and more LVOT obstruction. Interstitial fibrosis was present in segments both with and without LGE. Serum NT-proBNP and cTnT levels correlated with increasing LGE and extracellular volume in a graded fashion., Conclusions: The HCMR population has characteristics of low-risk HCM. Ninety-three percent had no or only mild functional limitation. Baseline data separated patients broadly into 2 categories. One group was sarcomere mutation positive and more likely had reverse septal curvature morphology, more fibrosis, but less resting obstruction, whereas the other was sarcomere mutation negative and more likely had isolated basal septal hypertrophy with obstruction, but less fibrosis. Further follow-up will allow better understanding of these subgroups and development of an improved risk prediction model incorporating all these markers., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The ABC (age, biomarker, clinical history)-stroke and ABC-bleeding risk scores incorporate clinical variables and cardiovascular biomarkers to estimate risk of stroke or systemic embolic events and bleeding, respectively, in patients with atrial fibrillation. These scores have been proposed for routine clinical use, but their performance in external cohorts remains uncertain., Methods: ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) was a multinational randomized trial of the oral factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHADS 2 score ≥2. We performed a nested prospective biomarker study in 8705 patients, analyzing baseline high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), NT-proBNP (N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide), and growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), as well as in serial samples after 12 months. The ABC-stroke (age, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, hsTnT, NT-proBNP) and ABC-bleeding (age, prior bleeding, hemoglobin, hsTnT, and GDF-15) scores were tested. Hazard ratios were adjusted for estimated glomerular filtration rate and the components of the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and HAS-BLED scores, respectively. Discrimination and reclassification were compared with these established scores., Results: Median baseline hsTnT, NT-proBNP, and GDF-15 levels were 13.7 ng/L (25th-75th percentiles, 9.6-20.4 ng/L), 811 pg/mL (386-1436 pg/mL), and 1661 pg/mL (1179-2427 pg/mL), respectively. Elevated hsTnT, NT-proBNP, and GDF-15 were independently associated with higher rates of stroke or systemic embolic events, and elevated hsTnT and GDF-15 were independently associated with higher rates of major bleeding ( P<0.001 for each). The ABC-stroke and ABC-bleeding scores were well calibrated and yielded higher c indexes than the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score for stroke or systemic embolic events (0.67 [95% CI, 0.65-0.70] versus 0.59 [95% CI, 0.57-0.62]; P<0.001) and HAS-BLED score for major bleeding (0.69 [95% CI, 0.66-0.71] versus 0.62 [95% CI, 0.60-0.64]; P<0.001), respectively. The ABC-stroke and ABC-bleeding scores stratified patients within CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and HAS-BLED risk categories ( P<0.001 for both). Patients with ABC-bleeding scores predicting a high 1-year risk of bleeding (>2%) derived greater benefit from treatment with edoxaban compared with warfarin., Conclusions: The ABC-stroke and ABC-bleeding scores evaluated in this anticoagulated clinical trial cohort were well calibrated and outperformed the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and HAS-BLED scores, respectively. These scores may help identify patients most likely to derive a benefit from treatment with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00781391.