[Use of a new protocol for prolactin extraction and reduction of false hyperprolactinemia].
BACKGROUND
Numerous authors have reported that prolactin measurement is influenced by several factors and consequently the values obtained may not faithfully reflect the physiological reality of the individual studied. Unless a series of measures is adopted, especially in the pre-analytic stage, values may be falsely elevated. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the extent to which optimization or non-optimization of the extraction procedure translates into higher results and how reports expressed in terms of monomeric (biologically active) prolactin could be crucial to adopt a diagnosis and therapeutic approach.


METHODS
We performed two extractions in each woman (following the protocol universally used for this kind of analysis): one through direct puncture and another 60 min later without a new puncture (a catheter was inserted in the site of the first puncture and kept permeable by salinization). The monomeric fraction was then studied, if required.


RESULTS
A statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 extractions. The monomeric fraction was three times lower in the second extraction than in the first.


CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study justify systematic use of extraction techniques that avoid the stress of venous puncture, as well as the use of the term biologically active prolactin [monomeric (little) prolactin fraction] in reports.
Robles Rodríguez
José Luis
JL
Servicio de Análisis Clínicos, Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, España.
Castaño López
Miguel Angel
MA
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001800:Blood Specimen Collection / Q000379:methods*; D002985:Clinical Protocols; D005189:False Positive Reactions; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D006966:Hyperprolactinemia / Q000097:blood* / Q000175:diagnosis*; D008875:Middle Aged; D011388:Prolactin / Q000097:blood*; D055815:Young Adult
D011388:Prolactin