Capillary versus venous haemoglobin determination in the assessment of healthy blood donors

A. J. Patel, R. Wesley, S. F. Leitman, Barbara Bryant

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)317-323
Number of pages7
JournalVox Sanguinis
Volume104
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2013

Fingerprint

Blood Donors
Hemoglobins
Tissue Donors
Hand
Donor Selection
Equipment and Supplies
Hematology

Keywords

  • Blood donor deferrals
  • Capillary haemoglobin determination
  • Haemoglobin screening of blood donors
  • Handedness
  • Venous haemoglobin determination

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology

Cite this

Capillary versus venous haemoglobin determination in the assessment of healthy blood donors. / Patel, A. J.; Wesley, R.; Leitman, S. F.; Bryant, Barbara.

In: Vox Sanguinis, Vol. 104, No. 4, 05.2013, p. 317-323.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Patel, A. J. ; Wesley, R. ; Leitman, S. F. ; Bryant, Barbara. / Capillary versus venous haemoglobin determination in the assessment of healthy blood donors. In: Vox Sanguinis. 2013 ; Vol. 104, No. 4. pp. 317-323.
@article{ca365b9f89704c9498c94c2ab35ba126,
title = "Capillary versus venous haemoglobin determination in the assessment of healthy blood donors",
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.",
keywords = "Blood donor deferrals, Capillary haemoglobin determination, Haemoglobin screening of blood donors, Handedness, Venous haemoglobin determination",
author = "Patel, {A. J.} and R. Wesley and Leitman, {S. F.} and Barbara Bryant",
year = "2013",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1111/vox.12006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "104",
pages = "317--323",
journal = "Vox Sanguinis",
issn = "0042-9007",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Capillary versus venous haemoglobin determination in the assessment of healthy blood donors

AU - Patel, A. J.

AU - Wesley, R.

AU - Leitman, S. F.

AU - Bryant, Barbara

PY - 2013/5

Y1 - 2013/5

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Blood donor deferrals

KW - Capillary haemoglobin determination

KW - Haemoglobin screening of blood donors

KW - Handedness

KW - Venous haemoglobin determination

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84876731478&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84876731478&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/vox.12006

DO - 10.1111/vox.12006

M3 - Article

VL - 104

SP - 317

EP - 323

JO - Vox Sanguinis

JF - Vox Sanguinis

SN - 0042-9007

IS - 4

ER -