CASE REPORT: We describe here an unusual case of leptospirosis complicated by haemolytic anaemia in a 70-year-old man with established kidney failure. He presented with an abrupt onset of shortness of breath, flushing and erythematous rash after completing haemodialysis. The patient's biochemistry test samples were however rejected twice as they were grossly haemolysed. The integrated auto-verification alert system implemented in the hospital's laboratory information system alerted the staff of the possibility of in vivo haemolysis.
DISCUSSION: The auto-verification alert system effectively distinguishes between in vitro and in vivo haemolysis and as such can be utilised as a diagnostic aid in patients with suspected intravascular haemolysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 129 healthy blood donors and staffs of Penang General Hospital were recruited from June 2018-May 2019. Paired (morning and late-night) saliva samples were collected from individuals aged between 18 and 60 years old with no history of chronic medical illness. Salivary cortisol was assayed using electrochemiluminescence immunoassay technique. Non-parametric statistics were used for calculation of reference interval and 90% confidence intervals (90% CIs).
RESULTS: The reference interval for morning and latenight salivary cortisol was 2.09 - 22.63 nmol/L and <12.00 nmol/L, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The locally-derived adult reference intervals for morning and late-night salivary cortisol concentration was determined and varied with previous studies emphasising the need in establishing individual laboratory reference interval.
Material and Methods: This experimental study involved 225 bone specimens prepared from discarded bone fragments during a series of 45 knee and hip arthroplasty surgeries. The bone fragments were cut into five identical cubes and were randomly assigned to either control (positive or negative), or experimental groups (0.5% chlorhexidine, 10% povidone-iodine or 70% alcohol). The control negative was to determine pre-contamination culture. All bone specimens, except the control negative group were uniformly contaminated by dropping on the operation theatre floor. Subsequently, the dropped bone specimens except for the control positive group, were disinfected by immersing in a respective antiseptic solution for 10 minutes, before transported to the microbiology laboratory for incubation.
Results: The incidence of a positive culture from a dropped bone fragment was 86.5%. From the 37 specimens sent for each group, the incidence of positive culture was 5.4% (2 specimens) after being disinfected using chlorhexidine, 67.6% (25 specimens) using povidone-iodine and 81.1% (30 specimens) using alcohol. Simple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that chlorhexidine was significantly effective in disinfecting contaminated bones (p-value <0.001, odd ratio 0.009). Povidone-iodine and alcohol were not statistically significant (p-value 0.059 and 0.53, respectively). Organisms identified were Bacillus species and coagulase negative Staphylococcus. No gram-negative bacteria were isolated.
Conclusion: A total of 0.5% chlorhexidine is effective and superior in disinfecting contaminated bones.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine the extent of variation in reporting of protein electrophoresis results questionnaires were distributed to the pathologists of various laboratories in Malaysia regarding the method, quantification of paraprotein concentrations and immunoglobulin assays, and information regarding current laboratory electrophoresis practices.
RESULTS: Variation was found in the following reporting practices: (a) screening protocol; (b) reporting of serum albumin; (c) numerical reporting of protein fractions and paraprotein; (d) co-migration of a paraprotein with a normal serum protein; (e) reporting of multiple paraprotein bands (f) appearance of small abnormal band and oligoclonal bands and (g) communication about of interferences.
CONCLUSION: The pathologists of the country made recommendations on the reporting of protein electrophoresis. Harmonised reporting will reduce inconsistency, variation in reporting, improve the quality of the report and most importantly improve patient care.