A J Patel1, R Wesley, S F Leitman, B J Bryant. 1. Department of Transfusion Medicine, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of fingerstick haemoglobin assessment in blood donors, the performance of a portable haemoglobinometer (HemoCue Hb 201+) was prospectively compared with that of an automated haematology analyzer (Cell-Dyn 4000). Haemoglobin values obtained by the latter were used as the 'true' result. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Capillary fingerstick samples were assayed by HemoCue in 150 donors. Fingerstick samples from two sites, one on each hand, were obtained from a subset of 50 subjects. Concurrent venous samples were tested using both HemoCue and Cell-Dyn devices. RESULTS: Capillary haemoglobin values (HemoCue) were significantly greater than venous haemoglobin values (HemoCue), which in turn were significantly greater than venous haemoglobin values by Cell-Dyn (mean ± SD: 14.05 ± 1.51, 13.89 ± 1.31, 13.62 ± 1.23, respectively; P < 0.01 for all comparisons among groups). Nine donors (6%) passed haemoglobin screening criteria (≥ 12.5 g/dl) by capillary HemoCue, but were deferred by Cell-Dyn values (false-pass). Five donors (3%) were deferred by capillary sampling, but passed by Cell-Dyn (false-fail). Substantial variability in repeated fingerstick HemoCue results was seen (mean haemoglobin 13.72 vs. 13.70 g/dl, absolute mean difference between paired samples 0.76 g/dl). Hand dominance was not a factor. CONCLUSIONS: Capillary samples assessed via a portable device yielded higher haemoglobin values than venous samples assessed on an automated analyzer. False-pass and false-fail rates were low and acceptable in the donor screening setting, with 'true' values not differing by a clinically significant degree from threshold values used to assess acceptability for blood donation.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of fingerstick haemoglobin assessment in blood donors, the performance of a portable haemoglobinometer (HemoCue Hb 201+) was prospectively compared with that of an automated haematology analyzer (Cell-Dyn 4000). Haemoglobin values obtained by the latter were used as the 'true' result. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Capillary fingerstick samples were assayed by HemoCue in 150 donors. Fingerstick samples from two sites, one on each hand, were obtained from a subset of 50 subjects. Concurrent venous samples were tested using both HemoCue and Cell-Dyn devices. RESULTS: Capillary haemoglobin values (HemoCue) were significantly greater than venous haemoglobin values (HemoCue), which in turn were significantly greater than venous haemoglobin values by Cell-Dyn (mean ± SD: 14.05 ± 1.51, 13.89 ± 1.31, 13.62 ± 1.23, respectively; P < 0.01 for all comparisons among groups). Nine donors (6%) passed haemoglobin screening criteria (≥ 12.5 g/dl) by capillary HemoCue, but were deferred by Cell-Dyn values (false-pass). Five donors (3%) were deferred by capillary sampling, but passed by Cell-Dyn (false-fail). Substantial variability in repeated fingerstick HemoCue results was seen (mean haemoglobin 13.72 vs. 13.70 g/dl, absolute mean difference between paired samples 0.76 g/dl). Hand dominance was not a factor. CONCLUSIONS: Capillary samples assessed via a portable device yielded higher haemoglobin values than venous samples assessed on an automated analyzer. False-pass and false-fail rates were low and acceptable in the donor screening setting, with 'true' values not differing by a clinically significant degree from threshold values used to assess acceptability for blood donation.
Authors: Adriana de A Paiva; Patrícia H C Rondó; Silmara S de B Silva; Maria do R D O Latorre Journal: Rev Saude Publica Date: 2004-08-09 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: Massimo Daves; Roberto Cemin; Elmar M Zagler; Alexandra Joos; Stefan Platzgummer; Rudolf Hueber; Giuseppe Lippi Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Ralph D Whitehead; Ming Zhang; Maya R Sternberg; Rosemary L Schleicher; Bakary Drammeh; Carine Mapango; Christine M Pfeiffer Journal: Clin Biochem Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 3.281
Authors: Stephanie Y Tseng; Zhiqian Gao; Theodosia A Kalfa; Nicholas J Ollberding; Sammy Tabbah; Regina Keller; James F Cnota Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: Maurício S Leite; Andrey M Cardoso; Carlos Ea Coimbra; James R Welch; Silvia A Gugelmin; Pedro Cabral I Lira; Bernardo L Horta; Ricardo Ventura Santos; Ana Lúcia Escobar Journal: Nutr J Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 3.271