BACKGROUND: Anemia screening before blood donation requires an accurate, quick, practical, and easy method with minimal discomfort for the donors. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of two quantitative methods of anemia screening: the HemoCue 201(+) (Aktiebolaget Leo Diagnostics) hemoglobin (Hb) and microhematocrit (micro-Hct) tests. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Two blood samples of a single fingerstick were obtained from 969 unselected potential female donors to determine the Hb by HemoCue 201(+) and micro-Hct using HemataSTAT II (Separation Technology, Inc.), in alternating order. From each participant, a venous blood sample was drawn and run in an automatic hematology analyzer (ABX Pentra 60, ABX Diagnostics). Considering results of ABX Pentra 60 as true values, the sensitivity and specificity of HemoCue 201(+) and micro-Hct as screening methods were compared, using a venous Hb level of 12.0 g per dL as cutoff for anemia. RESULTS: The sensitivities of the HemoCue 201(+) and HemataSTAT II in detecting anemia were 56 percent (95% confidence interval [CI], 46.1%-65.5%) and 39.5 percent (95% CI, 30.2%-49.3%), respectively (p < 0.001). Analyzing only candidates with a venous Hb level lower than 11.0 g per dL, the deferral rate was 100 percent by HemoCue 201(+) and 77 percent by HemataSTAT II. The specificities of the methods were 93.5 and 93.2 percent, respectively. CONCLUSION: The HemoCue 201(+) showed greater discriminating power for detecting anemia in prospective blood donors than the micro-Hct method. Both presented equivalent deferral error rates of nonanemic potential donors. Compared to the micro-Hct, HemoCue 201(+) reduces the risk of anemic female donors giving blood, specially for those with lower Hb levels, without increasing the deferral of nonanemic potential donors.
BACKGROUND:Anemia screening before blood donation requires an accurate, quick, practical, and easy method with minimal discomfort for the donors. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of two quantitative methods of anemia screening: the HemoCue 201(+) (Aktiebolaget Leo Diagnostics) hemoglobin (Hb) and microhematocrit (micro-Hct) tests. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Two blood samples of a single fingerstick were obtained from 969 unselected potential female donors to determine the Hb by HemoCue 201(+) and micro-Hct using HemataSTAT II (Separation Technology, Inc.), in alternating order. From each participant, a venous blood sample was drawn and run in an automatic hematology analyzer (ABX Pentra 60, ABX Diagnostics). Considering results of ABX Pentra 60 as true values, the sensitivity and specificity of HemoCue 201(+) and micro-Hct as screening methods were compared, using a venous Hb level of 12.0 g per dL as cutoff for anemia. RESULTS: The sensitivities of the HemoCue 201(+) and HemataSTAT II in detecting anemia were 56 percent (95% confidence interval [CI], 46.1%-65.5%) and 39.5 percent (95% CI, 30.2%-49.3%), respectively (p < 0.001). Analyzing only candidates with a venous Hb level lower than 11.0 g per dL, the deferral rate was 100 percent by HemoCue 201(+) and 77 percent by HemataSTAT II. The specificities of the methods were 93.5 and 93.2 percent, respectively. CONCLUSION: The HemoCue 201(+) showed greater discriminating power for detecting anemia in prospective blood donors than the micro-Hct method. Both presented equivalent deferral error rates of nonanemic potential donors. Compared to the micro-Hct, HemoCue 201(+) reduces the risk of anemic female donors giving blood, specially for those with lower Hb levels, without increasing the deferral of nonanemic potential donors.