We have been using blood directly from EDTA tube (violet) without any additional reagent, instead of 3.8% trisodium citrate solution with blood (1:4 ratio) for the last 7 years when calculating blood ESR. Results were compared with standard Westergren method carefully and found same results. In this method ,Westergren ESR tube was used and results were taken in one hour. Recent half hour method also shows same results using wider tubes. Convenience is that, blood collected for CBC in EDTA tube for auto hemolyzer is sufficient for the purpose. No separate EDTA preparation is needed.
Thank you for sharing your experience regarding the use of EDTA as an alternative to trisodium citrate for ESR estimation. Your observations are interesting, especially considering the potential convenience of using a single tube for both CBC and ESR.
However, I would like to offer a few points for scientific consideration:
In conclusion, although EDTA may be more convenient in some settings, trisodium citrate remains the validated and standardized anticoagulant for ESR measurement. Until large-scale, peer-reviewed studies confirm EDTA’s equivalence in all clinical scenarios, it may be best to follow established guidelines for consistency and accuracy.
I would be interested to learn more about your methodology—particularly how you controlled for variables such as timing, tube dimensions, and hematocrit levels. Have you considered publishing your data for broader scientific review?
- Badges
- Science method