Ensuring quality has become a daily requirement in laboratories. In haemostasis, even more than in other disciplines of biology, quality is determined by a pre-analytical step that encompasses all procedures, starting with the formulation of the medical question, and includes patient preparation, sample collection, handling, transportation, processing, and storage until time of analysis. This step, based on a variety of manual activities, is the most vulnerable part of the total testing process and is a major component of the reliability and validity of results in haemostasis and constitutes the most important source of erroneous or un-interpretable results. Pre-analytical errors may occur throughout the testing process and arise from unsuitable, inappropriate or wrongly handled procedures. Problems may arise during the collection of blood specimens such as misidentification of the sample, use of inadequate devices or needles, incorrect order of draw, prolonged tourniquet placing, unsuccessful attempts to locate the vein, incorrect use of additive tubes, collection of unsuitable samples for quality or quantity, inappropriate mixing of a sample, etc. Some factors can alter the result of a sample constituent after collection during transportation, preparation and storage. Laboratory errors can often have serious adverse consequences. Lack of standardized procedures for sample collection accounts for most of the errors encountered within the total testing process. They can also have clinical consequences as well as a significant impact on patient care, especially those related to specialized tests as these are often considered as “diagnostic”. Controlling pre-analytical variables is critical since this has a direct influence on the quality of results and on their clinical reliability. The accurate standardization of the pre-analytical phase is of pivotal importance for achieving reliable results of coagulation tests and should reduce the side effects of the influence factors. This review is a summary of the most important recommendations regarding the importance of pre-analytical factors for coagulation testing and should be a tool to increase awareness about the importance of pre-analytical factors for coagulation testing.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been licensed worldwide for several years for various indications. Each year, 10–15% of patients on oral anticoagulants will undergo an invasive procedure and expert groups have issued several guidelines on perioperative management in such situations. The perioperative guidelines have undergone numerous updates as clinical experience of emergency management has increased and perioperative studies including measurement of residual anticoagulant levels have been published. The high inter-patient variability of DOAC plasma levels has challenged the traditional recommendation that perioperative DOAC interruption should be based only on the elimination half-life of DOACs, especially before invasive procedures carrying a high risk of bleeding. Furthermore, recent publications have highlighted the potential danger of heparin bridging use when DOACs are stopped before an invasive procedure. As antidotes are progressively becoming available to manage severe bleeding or urgent procedures in patients on DOACs, accurate laboratory tests have become the standard to guide their administration and their actions need to be well understood by clinicians. This review aims to provide a systematic approach to managing patients on DOACs, based on recent updates of various perioperative guidance, and highlighting the advantages and limits of recommendations based on pharmacokinetic properties and laboratory tests.

Despite the ongoing development of automated hematology analyzers to optimize complete blood count results, platelet count still suffers from pre-analytical or analytical pitfalls, including EDTA-induced pseudothrombocytopenia. Although most of these interferences are widely known, laboratory practices remain highly heterogeneous. In order to harmonize and standardize cellular hematology practices, the French-speaking Cellular Hematology Group (GFHC) wants to focus on interferences that could affect the platelet count and to detail the verification steps with minimal recommendations, taking into account the different technologies employed nowadays. The conclusions of the GFHC presented here met with a "strong professional agreement" and are explained with their rationale to define the course of actions, in case thrombocytopenia or thrombocytosis is detected. They are proposed as minimum recommendations to be used by each specialist in laboratory medicine who remains free to use more restrictive guidelines based on the patient’s condition.

Pseudothrombocytopenia (PTCP), a relative common finding in clinical laboratories, can lead to diagnostic errors, overtreatment, and further (even invasive) unnecessary testing. Clinical consequences with potential life-threatening events (e.g., unnecessary platelet transfusion, inappropriate treatment including splenectomy or corticosteroids) are still observed when PTCP is not readily detected. The phenomenon is even more complex when occurring with different anticoagulants. In this review we present a case of multi-anticoagulant PTCP, where we studied different parameters including temperature, amikacin supplementation, measurement methods, and type of anticoagulant. Prevalence, clinical risk factors, pre-analytical and analytical factors, along with clinical implications, will be discussed. The detection of an anticoagulant-dependent PTCP does not necessarily imply the presence of specific disorders. Conversely, the incidence of PTCP seems higher in patients receiving low molecular weight heparin, during hospitalization, or in men aged 50 years or older. New analytical technologies, such as fluorescence or optical platelet counting, will be soon overturning traditional algorithms and represent valuable diagnostic aids. A practical laboratory approach, based on current knowledge of PTCP, is finally proposed for overcoming spuriously low platelet counts.

Traditional anticoagulant agents such as vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) and fondaparinux have been widely used in the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic diseases. However, these agents are associated with limitations, such as the need for regular coagulation monitoring (VKAs and UFH) or a parenteral route of administration (UFH, LMWHs and fondaparinux). Several non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are now widely used in the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic diseases and in stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Unlike VKAs, NOACs exhibit predictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. They are therefore usually given at fixed doses without routine coagulation monitoring. However, in certain patient populations or special clinical circumstances, measurement of drug exposure may be useful, such as in suspected overdose, in patients experiencing a hemorrhagic or thromboembolic event during the treatment’s period, in those with acute renal failure, in patients who require urgent surgery or in case of an invasive procedure. This article aims at providing guidance on laboratory testing of classic anticoagulants and NOACs.

In order to standardize cellular hematology practices, the French-speaking Cellular Hematology Group (Groupe Francophone d’Hématologie Cellulaire, GFHC) focused on Perls’ stain. A national survey was carried out, leading to the proposal of recommendations on insoluble iron detection and quantification in bone marrow. The criteria presented here met with a “strong professional agreement” and follow the suggestions of the World Health Organization’s classification of hematological malignancies.