Analysis of Electrophoresis Detection of 47940 Cases in a Tertiary Academic China Hospital: A 6-year Retrospective Audit and Briefly Review

Lujiang Yi¹, Ye Jiang¹, Zhongjian Zhao¹, Li Jiang² and Ruixia Yang^2,

¹#These authors contributed equally to this work.

²Department of Laboratory Medicine, Jiangsu Province Hospital (The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University), Nanjing, P. R. China

Cite this paper

Lujiang Yi, Ye Jiang, Zhongjian Zhao, Li Jiang and Ruixia Yang. Analysis of Electrophoresis Detection of 47940 Cases in a Tertiary Academic China Hospital: A 6-year Retrospective Audit and Briefly Review. American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research. 2020; 8(2):49-53. doi: 10.12691/AJCMR-8-2-5

Abstract

Background: This audit provides baseline data on the prevalence, testing pattern and yield of electrophoresis tests performed over a 6-year period in a tertiary academic China hospital. To evaluate the adequacy of the electrophoresis test request. Methods: This was a retrospective audit of all SPE, UPE and IFE tests performed on new and follow-up adult patients (aged ≥18 years) from 2014 to 2019, using data from the Department of Laboratory Science of Jiangsu Province Hospital laboratory information system database. Results: A total of 47,940 cases of electrophoresis, there are 15,473 cases SPE tests (of which 25.6% were follow-up tests); have 12,531 cases UPE tests (10.2% of the tests were follow-up tests); have 19,327 cases SIFE tests (31.6% of which were follow-up tests). Hematology was the highest rate of submission and positive. SPE testing before IFE tests can effectively increase the positive rate of IFE. Conclusion: This audit provides baseline data on the prevalence of test requests, their source and the yield of electrophoresis testing in our laboratory. An increasing trend in SIFE and UIFE was evident.

Keywords

electrophoresis, monoclonal gammopathies, accuracy, immunofixation

Copyright

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References

[1]	Fryer AA, Smellie WS. Managing demand for laboratory tests: a laboratory toolkit. J Clin Pathol. 2013; 66(1): 62-72.
[2]	Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15(12): e538-548.
[3]	Dispenzieri A, Kyle R, Merlini G, et al. International Myeloma Working Group guidelines for serum-free light chain analysis in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Leukemia. 2009; 23(2): 215-224.
[4]	Glavey SV, Leung N. Monoclonal gammopathy: The good, the bad and the ugly. Blood Rev. 2016; 30(3): 223-231.
[5]	Rollig C, Knop S, Bornhauser M. Multiple myeloma. Lancet. 2015; 385(9983): 2197-2208.
[6]	Willrich MAV, Murray DL, Kyle RA. Laboratory testing for monoclonal gammopathies: Focus on monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and smoldering multiple myeloma. Clin Biochem. 2018; 51: 38-47.
[7]	McTaggart MP, Kearney EM. Evidence-based use of serum protein electrophoresis in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013; 51(6): e113-115.
[8]	Doyle A, Soutar R, Geddes CC. Multiple myeloma in chronic kidney disease. Utility of discretionary screening using serum electrophoresis. Nephron Clin Pract. 2009; 111(1): c7-11.
[9]	Gounden V, Rampursat Y. An audit of immunofixation requesting practices at a South African referral laboratory. Afr J Lab Med. 2014; 3(1): 91.