Stahl M, Brandslund I
Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Vejle County Hospital, Vejle, Denmark.
Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2003;63(6):431-40. doi: 10.1080/00365510310002590.
Overall, there is good correlation between glucose values obtained from ear capillary blood and those from peripheral venous plasma, but there are considerable individual differences. Results obtained with these two methods are generally not interchangeable and the converted values should not be used in the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, because of the risk of misclassification. In Denmark this can affect 20-24000 persons. The aim of our study was to investigate whether these differences might be less significant if measurements were taken at the plasma phase of capillary blood and expressed directly as capillary plasma results and if finger capillary blood were used instead of ear capillary blood. The Hitachi 717 instrument was used for measurements of glucose concentrations in venous plasma, the Cobas Mira S in capillary whole blood and the Accu-Chek Inform from Roche in capillary plasma. The conclusions drawn were (1) capillary ear blood glucose concentration correlates well with capillary finger blood concentration and the two sites can be used interchangeably, yielding similar results in the individual patient; (2) sampling variation is almost the same (approx. 0.16 mmol/L) on capillary plasma and capillary whole blood from finger and ear. Sampling variation for venous plasma measured on the Hitachi instrument was 0.13 mmol/L; not significantly better; (3) the analytical imprecision of glucose measurements on capillary plasma (Accu-Chek Inform) and capillary whole blood (haemolysate method) is almost the same (approx. 2.0%). The analytical imprecision of glucose measurements on venous plasma is 0.9% using a laboratory method and almost twice as high using Accu-Chek Inform (2.1%); (4) determination of capillary plasma values in the finger did not improve the correlation with venous plasma values. Even though average values were in better concordance, individual differences did not change. For some persons, both ear- and finger capillary blood measurements deviate significantly from results on venous plasma, such that they cannot be used for diagnosis of diabetes mellitus; (5) the main factor for good correlation is the sampling site. Results obtained on plasma and whole blood from the same puncture correlate well; (6) neither capillary blood nor capillary plasma correlates with the venous plasma method recommended by the American Diabetes Association. It is concluded that physiologic differences in glucose content in capillary- and venous blood prohibit the random use of these two materials in the diagnosis of diabetes.
总体而言,从耳毛细血管血和外周静脉血浆获得的葡萄糖值之间存在良好的相关性,但个体差异相当大。用这两种方法获得的结果通常不可互换,由于存在错误分类的风险,转换后的值不应用于糖尿病的诊断。在丹麦,这可能会影响20至24000人。我们研究的目的是调查,如果在毛细血管血的血浆阶段进行测量并直接表示为毛细血管血浆结果,以及如果使用手指毛细血管血代替耳毛细血管血,这些差异是否可能不那么显著。使用日立717仪器测量静脉血浆中的葡萄糖浓度,使用Cobas Mira S测量毛细血管全血中的葡萄糖浓度,使用罗氏公司的Accu-Chek Inform测量毛细血管血浆中的葡萄糖浓度。得出的结论是:(1)耳毛细血管血糖浓度与手指毛细血管血浓度相关性良好,两个部位可互换使用,在个体患者中产生相似的结果;(2)手指和耳部的毛细血管血浆和毛细血管全血的采样变异几乎相同(约0.16 mmol/L)。用日立仪器测量的静脉血浆的采样变异为0.13 mmol/L;没有明显更好;(3)毛细血管血浆(Accu-Chek Inform)和毛细血管全血(溶血法)上葡萄糖测量的分析不精密度几乎相同(约2.0%)。使用实验室方法,静脉血浆中葡萄糖测量的分析不精密度为0.9%,使用Accu-Chek Inform时几乎高出两倍(2.1%);(4)测定手指中的毛细血管血浆值并不能改善与静脉血浆值的相关性。尽管平均值的一致性更好,但个体差异并未改变。对于一些人来说,耳和手指毛细血管血的测量结果与静脉血浆的结果都有显著偏差,因此不能用于糖尿病的诊断;(5)良好相关性的主要因素是采样部位。从同一穿刺获得的血浆和全血的结果相关性良好;(6)毛细血管血和毛细血管血浆都与美国糖尿病协会推荐的静脉血浆方法不相关。得出的结论是,毛细血管血和静脉血中葡萄糖含量的生理差异禁止在糖尿病诊断中随意使用这两种材料。