Suppr超能文献

通过两种型号的HemoCue进行的毛细血管血红蛋白估计和静脉血红蛋白估计的准确性与自动细胞计数器血红蛋白测量的比较。

Comparison of the accuracy of capillary hemoglobin estimation and venous hemoglobin estimation by two models of HemoCue against automated cell counter hemoglobin measurement.

作者信息

Jain Ashish, Chowdhury Nilotpal

机构信息

Department of Transfusion Medicine and Blood Bank, AIIMS, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and In-charge, Blood Bank, AIIMS, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.

出版信息

Asian J Transfus Sci. 2020 Jan-Jun;14(1):49-53. doi: 10.4103/ajts.AJTS_93_17. Epub 2020 Jul 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

HemoCue point of care devices has been extensively used in screening for anemia in blood banking. HemoCue can estimate hemoglobin (Hb) both from venous as well as capillary blood. However, the suitability of HemoCue Hb estimation in donor selection is unclear.

AIMS

The aims of this study were to evaluate variance of difference in Hb measurement in capillary HemoCue estimation as compared to venous HemoCue estimation from automated cell counter and to assess accuracy of two different HemoCue models (201 and 301) against automated cell counter Hb measurements in both capillary as well as venous blood.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

HemoCue 201 and 301 were evaluated by a comparison of methods study against Sysmex XP-100 three-part analyzer at a blood bank of a tertiary care hospital in Uttarakhand, India, in 2017. Assessment for anemia of 115 donors was done initially by capillary Hb by a convenience sampling to 2 instruments from 2 different models of HemoCue (total of 4 instruments). Venous blood collected was analyzed by Sysmex XP-100 and all HemoCue analyzers.

RESULTS

For capillary method, bias ranged from -0.97 to -0.37 g/dL, upper limit of agreement (LOA) ranged from 0.72 to -1.06 g/dL, and lower LOA ranged from -2.65 to -1.79 g/dL. For venous method, bias ranged from -0.03 to -0.24 g/dL, the upper LOA ranged from 0.81 to -1.07 g/dL, and lower LOA ranged from -1.04 to -0.57 g/dL. Thus, capillary HemoCue estimation exhibited greater bias as well as wider LOA. Variance of the differences from automated counter was significantly lower for venous HemoCue comparison compared to capillary HemoCue estimation ( < 0.001 for each instrument).

CONCLUSION

Errors in capillary sampling of blood show the extent to which preanalytical errors can influence results in point-of-care devices. We suggest augmentation of any blood bank-based Hb screening process based just on capillary sampling to be augmented by a properly selected venous sampling to reduce deferral for a false-positive screen of anemia.

摘要

背景

HemoCue即时检测设备已广泛用于血库贫血筛查。HemoCue可通过静脉血和毛细血管血来估算血红蛋白(Hb)。然而,HemoCue Hb估算在献血者筛选中的适用性尚不清楚。

目的

本研究的目的是评估与自动血细胞计数仪检测的静脉血HemoCue估算相比,毛细血管血HemoCue估算中Hb测量差异的方差,并评估两种不同型号的HemoCue(201和301)在毛细血管血和静脉血中与自动血细胞计数仪Hb测量结果相比的准确性。

材料与方法

2017年,在印度北阿坎德邦一家三级护理医院的血库中,通过与Sysmex XP - 100三分群分析仪进行方法对比研究,对HemoCue 201和301进行评估。最初,通过便利抽样,使用2种不同型号的HemoCue(共4台仪器)对115名献血者的毛细血管血Hb进行贫血评估。采集的静脉血由Sysmex XP - 100和所有HemoCue分析仪进行分析。

结果

对于毛细血管血检测方法,偏差范围为 - 0.97至 - 0.37 g/dL,一致性上限(LOA)范围为0.72至 - 1.06 g/dL,一致性下限范围为 - 2.65至 - 1.79 g/dL。对于静脉血检测方法,偏差范围为 - 0.03至 - 0.24 g/dL,一致性上限范围为0.81至 - 1.07 g/dL,一致性下限范围为 - 1.04至 - 0.57 g/dL。因此,毛细血管血HemoCue估算表现出更大的偏差以及更宽的一致性区间。与毛细血管血HemoCue估算相比,静脉血HemoCue与自动血细胞计数仪差异的方差显著更低(每种仪器的P < 0.001)。

结论

毛细血管采血误差表明分析前误差对即时检测设备结果的影响程度。我们建议,任何仅基于毛细血管采血的血库Hb筛查流程,都应增加适当选择的静脉采血,以减少因贫血假阳性筛查而导致的延期献血情况。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d1c6/7607980/c7b1f3d6d422/AJTS-14-49-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验