Pneumatic tube systems (PTSs) have revolutionized sample transport efficiency, yet concerns about sample integrity remain unresolved. This study evaluated the AirLab system (PazKorea, Hanam-si, Korea), a novel high-speed carrier-free PTS, for its impact on sample integrity and turnaround time (TAT) under controlled pre-analytical conditions.
Methods
Blood specimens were collected in duplicate from 42 participants (30 healthy volunteers and 12 outpatients with chronic alcohol use) and randomly assigned to PTS or manual transport. Multiple laboratory parameters were analysed, including chemistry, hematology, coagulation, and heavy metal tests. Sample integrity was assessed by comparing test results between transport methods using both statistical analysis and clinical significance criteria based on total allowable error (TAE). Pre-analytical, analytical and total TATs were compared between transport methods.
Results
Among 20 measurands, four showed statistically significant differences: glucose, potassium (K), lactate dehydrogenase (LD), and mean corpuscular volume (MCV). PTS yielded higher results for glucose, K and LD (average percentage biases: 1.88%, 2.01%, and 15.80%, respectively), while producing lower results for MCV (average percentage bias: −0.47%). Only LD showed clinically significant differences, as its average percentage bias exceeded its desirable TAE. PTS significantly reduced both pre-analytical and total TATs for all test types, with reductions ranging from 12.12% to 22.82% and 7.32% to 8.98%, respectively, whereas analytical TATs remained unchanged.
Conclusions
The AirLab system effectively preserves sample integrity for most laboratory parameters while improving operational efficiency through TAT reduction. However, the clinically significant elevation in LD levels necessitates careful interpretation when employing this system in clinical laboratories.
ArmbrusterDAOvercashDRReyesJ. Clinical chemistry laboratory automation in the 21st century - amat Victoria curam (victory loves careful preparation). Clin Biochem Rev2014; 35: 143–153.
PragayDAEdwardsLToppinM, et al.Evaluation of an improved pneumatic-tube system suitable for transportation of blood specimens. Clin Chem1974; 20: 57–60.
4.
MärtensCMSchöpfelJBollmannS, et al.Evaluation of a pneumatic tube system carrier prototype with fixing mechanism allowing for automated unloading. Clin Chem Lab Med2022; 60: 1202–1210. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0193
5.
YurtEFAkbiyikFBicerC. Investigation of the effects of pneumatic tube transport system on routine biochemistry, hematology, and coagulation tests in Ankara city hospital. Clin Chem Lab Med2022; 60: 707–713. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2021-1235
6.
GilsCBroellFVinholtPJ, et al.Use of clinical data and acceleration profiles to validate pneumatic transportation systems. Clin Chem Lab Med2020; 58: 560–568. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0881
7.
SuchslandJWinterTGreiserA, et al.Extending laboratory automation to the wards: effect of an innovative pneumatic tube system on diagnostic samples and transport time. Clin Chem Lab Med2017; 55: 225–230. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0380
8.
AndersenIBMogensenNBrandslundI. Stability of biochemical components in blood samples transported by Tempus600/Sysmex GLP robot reception system. J Appl Lab Med2017; 1: 376–386. https://doi.org/10.1373/jalm.2016.021188
9.
KoesslerJKobsarALBrunnerK, et al.The preanalytical influence of two different mechanical transport systems on laboratory analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med2011; 49: 1379–1382. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2011.198
10.
TiwariAKPandeyPDixitS, et al.Speed of sample transportation by a pneumatic tube system can influence the degree of hemolysis. Clin Chem Lab Med2011; 50: 471–474. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2011.779
11.
CakircaGErdalH. The effect of pneumatic tube systems on the hemolysis of biochemistry blood samples. J Emerg Nurs2017; 43: 255–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2016.09.007
12.
LippiGPlebaniMDi SommaS, et al.Hemolyzed specimens: a major challenge for emergency departments and clinical laboratories. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci2011; 48: 143–153. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408363.2011.600228
13.
KaraHBayirAAkA, et al.Hemolysis associated with pneumatic tube system transport for blood samples. Pakistan J Med Sci2014; 30: 50–58. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.301.4228
14.
KapoulaGVKontouPIBagosPG. The impact of pneumatic tube system on routine laboratory parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med2017; 55: 1834–1844. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2017-0008
15.
KeshgegianAABullGE. Evaluation of a soft-handling computerized pneumatic tube specimen delivery system. Effects on analytical results and turnaround time. Am J Clin Pathol1992; 97: 535–540. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/97.4.535
16.
StairTOHowellJMFitzgeraldDJ, et al.Hemolysis of blood specimens transported from ED to laboratory by pneumatic tube. Am J Emerg Med1995; 13: 484. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-6757(95)90145-0
17.
StreichertTOttoBSchnabelC, et al.Determination of hemolysis thresholds by the use of data loggers in pneumatic tube systems. Clin Chem2011; 57: 1390–1397. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2011.167932
18.
EvliyaoğluOToprakGTekinA, et al.Effect of pneumatic tube delivery system rate and distance on hemolysis of blood specimens. J Clin Lab Anal2012; 26: 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.21484
KavsakPAMansourMWangL, et al.Assessing pneumatic tube systems with patient-specific populations and laboratory-derived criteria. Clin Chem2012; 58: 792–795. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2011.179044
21.
GuiheneufRVuillaumeIMangalaboyiJ, et al.Pneumatic transport is critical for leukaemic patients with major leukocytosis: what precautions to measure lactate dehydrogenase, potassium and aspartate aminotransferase?Ann Clin Biochem2010; 47: 94–96. https://doi.org/10.1258/acb.2009.009044
22.
KorogluMErkurtMAKukuI, et al.Assessing safety of Pneumatic Tube System (PTS) for patients with very low hematologic parameters. Med Sci Monit2016; 22: 1329–1333. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.898164
23.
Strubi-VuillaumeICarlierVObeufC, et al.Gentle blood aspiration and tube cushioning reduce pneumatic tube system interference in lactate dehydrogenase assays. Ann Clin Biochem2016; 53: 295–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004563215586600
24.
CuiMJingRWangH. Changes of serum lactate dehydrogenase and potassium levels produced by a pneumatic tube system. Lab Med2009; 40: 728–731. https://doi.org/10.1309/lmznz2y1p3krdqyl
25.
SodiRDarnSMStottA. Pneumatic tube system induced haemolysis: assessing sample type susceptibility to haemolysis. Ann Clin Biochem2004; 41: 237–240. https://doi.org/10.1258/000456304323019631
26.
Böckel-FrohnhöferNHübnerUHummelB, et al.Pneumatic tube-transported blood samples in lithium heparinate gel separator tubes may be more susceptible to haemolysis than blood samples in serum tubes. Scand J Clin Lab Invest2014; 74: 599–602.
KumariSKumarSBhartiN, et al.Impact of pneumatic transport system on preanalytical phase affecting clinical biochemistry results. J Lab Physicians2023; 15: 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1750077
30.
Gomez-RiojaRFernandez-CallePAlcaideMJ, et al.Interindividual variability of hemolysis in plasma samples during pneumatic tube system transport. Clin Chem Lab Med2013; 51: e231–e233. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2013-0171
31.
PlebaniMZaninottoM. Pneumatic tube delivery systems for patient samples: evidence of quality and quality of evidence. Clin Chem Lab Med2011; 49: 1245–1246. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2011.216
32.
WallinOSöderbergJGrankvistK, et al.Preanalytical effects of pneumatic tube transport on routine haematology, coagulation parameters, platelet function and global coagulation. Clin Chem Lab Med2008; 46: 1443–1449. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2008.288
MakhloufRFendriSJallouliD, et al.Influence of pneumatic tube delivery system on laboratory results. Ann Clin Biochem2024; 61: 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/00045632231213743
35.
HeiremanLStroobantsJUyttenbroeckW, et al.Smartphone application monitoring of acceleration forces during pneumatic tube system transport of emergency department patient samples. Clin Lab2018; 64: 1297–1304. https://doi.org/10.7754/Clin.Lab.2018.180325
36.
KheraPKJoinerCHCarruthersA, et al.Evidence for interindividual heterogeneity in the glucose gradient across the human red blood cell membrane and its relationship to hemoglobin glycation. Diabetes2008; 57: 2445–2452. https://doi.org/10.2337/db07-1820
37.
NyboMLundMETitlestadK, et al.Blood sample transportation by pneumatic transportation systems: a systematic literature review. Clin Chem2018; 64: 782–790. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2017.280479
38.
PupekAMatthewsonBWhitmanE, et al.Comparison of pneumatic tube system with manual transport for routine chemistry, hematology, coagulation and blood gas tests. Clin Chem Lab Med2017; 55: 1537–1544. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-1157
39.
YuJZhuGCuiK, et al.Comparison of the speed and quality of innovative and traditional pneumatic tube system transport outside of an emergency laboratory. Heliyon2024; 10: e31511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31511
40.
LeeAJSuk SuhHJeonCH, et al.Effects of one directional pneumatic tube system on routine hematology and chemistry parameters; A validation study at a tertiary care hospital. Pract Lab Med2017; 9: 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2017.07.002
41.
DalyNFlynnICarrollC, et al.Comparison of Citrate-Fluoride-EDTA with Fluoride-EDTA additives to stabilize plasma glucose measurements in women being screened during pregnancy with an oral glucose tolerance test: a prospective observational study. Clin Chem2016; 62: 886–887. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2016.254466
42.
SacksDBArnoldMBakrisGL, et al.Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care2023; 46: e151–e199. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci23-0036
43.
LippiGAvanziniPPavesiF, et al.Studies on in vitro hemolysis and utility of corrective formulas for reporting results on hemolyzed specimens. Biochem Med2011; 21: 297–305. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2011.040
44.
de JongeGDos SantosTLCruzBR, et al.Interference of in vitro hemolysis complete blood count. J Clin Lab Anal2018; 32: e22396. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.22396
45.
SubbarayanDChoccalingamCLakshmiCKA. The effects of sample transport by pneumatic tube system on routine hematology and coagulation tests. Adv Hematol2018; 2018: 6940152. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6940152
46.
ErcanMAkbulutEDBayraktarN, et al.Effects of specimen haemolysis on complete blood count results by abbott Alinity hq system. Biochem Med2021; 31: 030706. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2021.030706
47.
LippiGPavesiFBardiM, et al.Lack of harmonization of red blood cell distribution width (RDW). Evaluation of four hematological analyzers. Clin Biochem2014; 47: 1100–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.06.003
48.
FernandesCMWorsterAEvaK, et al.Pneumatic tube delivery system for blood samples reduces turnaround times without affecting sample quality. J Emerg Nurs2006; 32: 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2005.11.013
49.
GussDAChanTCKilleenJP. The impact of a pneumatic tube and computerized physician order management on laboratory turnaround time. Ann Emerg Med2008; 51: 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.03.010
50.
VatsalyaVKongMCaveMC, et al.Association of serum zinc with markers of liver injury in very heavy drinking alcohol-dependent patients. J Nutr Biochem2018; 59: 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnutbio.2018.05.003
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
