Failed Calprotectin

Bit of a wierd one, wondered if anyone else has had this.

I've had 2 FC's in the past year - both fine (by fine, I mean, that I got a result).

However, I've just had 2 failures with the lab saying there was too much mucous in the sample (although it looked okay to me, but I'm no expert )

Now looking at calprotectin.co.uk it sayeth.

Why is it necessary to avoid mucous in the stool? The sample must be collected without any chemical or biological additions in the collection device. Alpha Labs has been informed by Arne Roseth that the mucous contains glycoproteins that can bind with Calprotectin and not release it. Usually there are sections of the sample that are free from mucous and more solid. If a sample is mostly mucous it is likely not first morning stool. Mucous can affect the reproducibility of the data.

But it was first morning and I hadn't had a colonoscopy or anything funny - in fact, I've given up alot of meds since just about to have surgery for fibrotic stricturing.

Has anyone else had this happen or am I special ?:banana:

Good to know about that, I have never seen it mentioned. Perhaps that's why my FCs come back negative. Seems a bit strange though, seeing as mucus is an important feature of intestine defence I would have thought there should be a mucus insensitive test.

I once asked the FC microbiologist at the hospital if I should avoid taking my suppository the night prior of morning FC. he said it would be fine and not matter. Nevertheless I decided not to take it just to make sure I only had stool in my sample.

what were the proportion of matters in your sample do you remember? 50/50 mucous/stool?

I know they need a brasilian nut size of stool at least.

"what were the proportion of matters in your sample do you remember? 50/50 mucous/stool?"

I must be missing a memo - I have absolutely no idea how to tell.

I know (i) it came out of my bum bum and (ii) I filled a sample tube to the brim with it (even packed it down). I always thought that was good enough...but apparently not.