BACKGROUND: Abnormal hematocrit levels may interfere with glucose readings of patient self-assessment blood glucose (BG) meters. The aim of this laboratory investigation was to assess the potential influence of hematocrit variations on a variety of BG meters applying different measurement technologies. METHODS: Venous heparinized blood was manipulated to contain three different BG concentrations (50-90, 120-180, and 280-350 mg/dl) and five different hematocrit levels (25%, 35%, 45%, 55%, and 65%). After careful oxygenation to normal blood oxygen pressure (65-100 mmHg), each sample was measured (eight times) with the following devices: Accu-Chek® Aviva Nano and Active, Breeze®2 and Contour®, FreeStyle Freedom Lite®, GlucoDr. auto™, Glucofix® mio Plus, GlucoLab™, GlucoMen® LX Plus, Nova Max® Link, Nova Max® Plus, OneTouch® Ultra®2 and Verio®, On Call® Plus and Platinum, Optium Xceed®, Precision Xceed®, and TaiDoc Fora TD-4227. A YSI 2300 STAT Plus™ glucose analyzer served as reference method. Stability to hematocrit influence was assumed, with <10% mean glucose result bias between the highest and lowest hematocrit levels. RESULTS: Six of the investigated meters showed a stable performance in this investigation: Accu-Chek Active (7%), Glucofix mio Plus (5%), GlucoMen LX Plus (4%), Nova Max Plus (4%), Nova Max Link (7%), and OneTouch Verio (3%). All other meters failed this hematocrit interference test, with FreeStyle Freedom Lite (11%), and On Call Platinum (12%) being the better devices and On Call Plus (68%), GlucoLab (51%), TaiDoc Fora TD-4227 (39%), and Breeze 2 (38%) showing the worst performance. CONCLUSIONS: Hematocrit may affect BG meter performance in daily routine. In case of interference, low hematocrit values (<35%) result in too high readings. Our results encourage use of meters that are not affected by hematocrit interference.
BACKGROUND: Abnormal hematocrit levels may interfere with glucose readings of patient self-assessment blood glucose (BG) meters. The aim of this laboratory investigation was to assess the potential influence of hematocrit variations on a variety of BG meters applying different measurement technologies. METHODS: Venous heparinized blood was manipulated to contain three different BG concentrations (50-90, 120-180, and 280-350 mg/dl) and five different hematocrit levels (25%, 35%, 45%, 55%, and 65%). After careful oxygenation to normal blood oxygen pressure (65-100 mmHg), each sample was measured (eight times) with the following devices: Accu-Chek® Aviva Nano and Active, Breeze®2 and Contour®, FreeStyle Freedom Lite®, GlucoDr. auto™, Glucofix® mio Plus, GlucoLab™, GlucoMen® LX Plus, Nova Max® Link, Nova Max® Plus, OneTouch® Ultra®2 and Verio®, On Call® Plus and Platinum, Optium Xceed®, Precision Xceed®, and TaiDoc Fora TD-4227. A YSI 2300 STAT Plus™ glucose analyzer served as reference method. Stability to hematocrit influence was assumed, with <10% mean glucose result bias between the highest and lowest hematocrit levels. RESULTS: Six of the investigated meters showed a stable performance in this investigation: Accu-Chek Active (7%), Glucofix mio Plus (5%), GlucoMenLX Plus (4%), Nova Max Plus (4%), Nova Max Link (7%), and OneTouch Verio (3%). All other meters failed this hematocrit interference test, with FreeStyle Freedom Lite (11%), and On Call Platinum (12%) being the better devices and On Call Plus (68%), GlucoLab (51%), TaiDoc Fora TD-4227 (39%), and Breeze 2 (38%) showing the worst performance. CONCLUSIONS: Hematocrit may affect BG meter performance in daily routine. In case of interference, low hematocrit values (<35%) result in too high readings. Our results encourage use of meters that are not affected by hematocrit interference.
Authors: Brad S Karon; Laurie Griesmann; Renee Scott; Sandra C Bryant; Jeffrey A Dubois; Terry L Shirey; Steven Presti; Paula J Santrach Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Petra B Musholt; Christina Schipper; Nicole Thomé; Sanja Ramljak; Marc Schmidt; Thomas Forst; Andreas Pfützner Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2011-09-01
Authors: Richard F Louie; Stephanie L Sumner; Shaunyé Belcher; Ron Mathew; Nam K Tran; Gerald J Kost Journal: Disaster Med Public Health Prep Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 1.385
Authors: Andreas Pfützner; Christina Schipper; Sanja Ramljak; Frank Flacke; Jochen Sieber; Thomas Forst; Petra B Musholt Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2013-01-01
Authors: Andreas Pfützner; Petra B Musholt; Christina Schipper; Filiz Demircik; Carina Hengesbach; Frank Flacke; Jochen Sieber; Thomas Forst Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2013-11-01
Authors: Andreas Pfützner; Christina Schipper; Sanja Ramljak; Frank Flacke; Jochen Sieber; Thomas Forst; Petra B Musholt Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2013-11-01
Authors: Elizabeth A Clemmons; Melissa I Stovall; Devon C Owens; Jessica A Scott; Amelia C Jones-Wilkes; Doty J Kempf; Kelly F Ethun Journal: J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci Date: 2016 Impact factor: 1.232