Premium
Noninvasive methods for haemoglobin screening in prospective blood donors
Author(s) -
Belardinelli A.,
Benni M.,
Tazzari P. L.,
Pagliaro P.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
vox sanguinis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.68
H-Index - 83
eISSN - 1423-0410
pISSN - 0042-9007
DOI - 10.1111/vox.12033
Subject(s) - fingerstick , medicine , coulter counter , limits of agreement , prospective cohort study , venous blood , nuclear medicine , surgery , diabetes mellitus , endocrinology , microbiology and biotechnology , biology
Background and Objectives The haemoglobin level of prospective blood donors is usually performed on blood obtained by from the finger pulp by fingerstick with a lancet and filling a capillary tube with a sample. New noninvasive methods are now available for rapid, noninvasive predonation haemoglobin screening. Materials and Methods Prospective blood donors at our blood centre were tested, in two different trials, as follows: by the NBM 200 ( O r S ense) test ( n = 445 donors) and by the Pronto‐7 ( M asimo) test ( n = 463 donors). The haemoglobin values of each trial and the haemoglobin of finger pulp blood obtained by fingerstick with a lancet ( H emo C ue) were compared with the haemoglobin values obtained from a venous sample on a C ell C ounter ( B eckman C oulter). Results Comparison of B eckman C oulter C ell C ounter and O r S ense and results showed a bias of 0·29 g/dl, the standard deviation of the differences ( SDD ) of 0·98 and 95% limits of agreement from −1·64 to 2·21, using B land and A ltman statistical methodology. Comparison of M asimo and B eckman C oulter C ell C ounter results showed a bias of −0·53 g/dl, SDD of 1·04 and 95% limits of agreement from −2·57 to 1·51. Cumulative analysis of all 908 donors, as tested by the usual fingerstick test showed a bias of 0·83 g/dl, SDD of 0·70 and 95% limits of agreement from −0·54 to 2·20 compared with the C oulter C ell C ounter. Compared with the C oulter C ounter, the specificity of the methods was 99·5% for fingerstick, 97% for O r S ense and 83% for M assimo, and the sensitivity was 99, 98 and 93%, respectively. Conclusions Analysis of finger pulp blood by either direct sampling by fingerstick and H emocue, or by noninvasive haemoglobin tests does not replicate the results of cell counter analysis of venous samples. Compared with fingerstick, noninvasive haemoglobin tests eliminate pain and reduce stress, but have a lower level of specificity and sensitivity.