Yoshimoto A
Kotobiken Medical Laboratory, Biken Central Lab., Tsukuba.
Radioisotopes. 1988 Sep;37(9):517-20. doi: 10.3769/radioisotopes.37.9_517.
About 15% of CPR-U did not correspond between two kinds of kits in the routine assay, which were produced by different pharmaceutical firms, and also it is realised that the effect of the preservative, storage condition and buffer dilutions can not be overlooked in quality control programmes. Based on these problems, following results are concluded; (1) Urine preservative: NaN3 is better than toluene. (2) Urine CPR was stable for added preservative at 4 degrees C for two weeks. (3) Diluents may effect the CPR-U results, if not kept in good condition. The role of the makers in supporting improved quality in clinical laboratory tests will be expected.
在常规检测中，由不同制药公司生产的两种试剂盒之间约15%的心肺复苏术尿样（CPR-U）结果不一致，同时也意识到在质量控制程序中，防腐剂的作用、储存条件和缓冲液稀释不容忽视。基于这些问题，得出以下结果：（1）尿液防腐剂：叠氮化钠（NaN3）优于甲苯。（2）添加防腐剂的尿液CPR在4℃下可稳定保存两周。（3）如果稀释剂保存条件不佳，可能会影响CPR-U结果。期望制造商在支持提高临床实验室检测质量方面发挥作用。
