BACKGROUND: Plasma osmolality (POsm) is a gold standard to assess hydration status but requires venipuncture. POsm obtained by lancing a digit, a source of capillary puncture blood (CAP), has not been validated. This study compared POsm from CAP versus venous blood (VEN) and validated its sensitivity to detect dehydration. METHODS: Healthy young adults (Study A: n=20 men, 22 women; Study B: n=23 men, 23 women) participated. In Study A, CAP and VEN were compared under controlled euhydration meeting dietary reference intakes for water (3.7 L men, 2.7 L women). In Study B, CAP was assessed for sensitivity to detect dehydration with receiver operating characteristic analysis over two 24 h periods: euhydration for 24 h followed by water restriction over 24 h. POsm was measured using freezing point depression. RESULTS: For all subjects, CAP POsm (283.0±3.9 mOsm/kg) was not significantly different (p=0.07) from VEN (284.2±3.5) during euhydration and met analytical goals for individuality and heterogeneity. When outliers (n=3) were eliminated, mean difference was -1.6 (±3.2) lower (p<0.01) with CAP. Fluid restriction increased (p<0.001) CAP POsm (284.0±4.4 to 292.8±5.2 mOsm/kg), achieving excellent accuracy (0.92) and sensitivity (89.1%) to predict mild dehydration (2% body mass loss). CONCLUSIONS: POsm via CAP exhibited similar coefficients of variation and analytical goals compared to VEN combined with excellent accuracy and sensitivity to detect dehydration. Although CAP values were approximately 2 mOsm/kg lower than VEN, CAP appears an adequate substitute for tracking changes in non-clinical settings.
BACKGROUND: Plasma osmolality (POsm) is a gold standard to assess hydration status but requires venipuncture. POsm obtained by lancing a digit, a source of capillary puncture blood (CAP), has not been validated. This study compared POsm from CAP versus venous blood (VEN) and validated its sensitivity to detect dehydration. METHODS: Healthy young adults (Study A: n=20 men, 22 women; Study B: n=23 men, 23 women) participated. In Study A, CAP and VEN were compared under controlled euhydration meeting dietary reference intakes for water (3.7 L men, 2.7 L women). In Study B, CAP was assessed for sensitivity to detect dehydration with receiver operating characteristic analysis over two 24 h periods: euhydration for 24 h followed by water restriction over 24 h. POsm was measured using freezing point depression. RESULTS: For all subjects, CAP POsm (283.0±3.9 mOsm/kg) was not significantly different (p=0.07) from VEN (284.2±3.5) during euhydration and met analytical goals for individuality and heterogeneity. When outliers (n=3) were eliminated, mean difference was -1.6 (±3.2) lower (p<0.01) with CAP. Fluid restriction increased (p<0.001) CAP POsm (284.0±4.4 to 292.8±5.2 mOsm/kg), achieving excellent accuracy (0.92) and sensitivity (89.1%) to predict mild dehydration (2% body mass loss). CONCLUSIONS: POsm via CAP exhibited similar coefficients of variation and analytical goals compared to VEN combined with excellent accuracy and sensitivity to detect dehydration. Although CAP values were approximately 2 mOsm/kg lower than VEN, CAP appears an adequate substitute for tracking changes in non-clinical settings.