Cargando…

Comparison of four methods to measure haemoglobin concentrations in whole blood donors (COMPARE): A diagnostic accuracy study

OBJECTIVE: To compare four haemoglobin measurement methods in whole blood donors. BACKGROUND: To safeguard donors, blood services measure haemoglobin concentration in advance of each donation. NHS Blood and Transplant's (NHSBT) customary method have been capillary gravimetry (copper sulphate),...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bell, Steven, Sweeting, Michael, Ramond, Anna, Chung, Ryan, Kaptoge, Stephen, Walker, Matthew, Bolton, Thomas, Sambrook, Jennifer, Moore, Carmel, McMahon, Amy, Fahle, Sarah, Cullen, Donna, Mehenny, Susan, Wood, Angela M., Armitage, Jane, Ouwehand, Willem H., Miflin, Gail, Roberts, David J., Danesh, John, Di Angelantonio, Emanuele
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8048787/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33341984
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tme.12750
_version_ 1783679295047073792
author Bell, Steven
Sweeting, Michael
Ramond, Anna
Chung, Ryan
Kaptoge, Stephen
Walker, Matthew
Bolton, Thomas
Sambrook, Jennifer
Moore, Carmel
McMahon, Amy
Fahle, Sarah
Cullen, Donna
Mehenny, Susan
Wood, Angela M.
Armitage, Jane
Ouwehand, Willem H.
Miflin, Gail
Roberts, David J.
Danesh, John
Di Angelantonio, Emanuele
author_facet Bell, Steven
Sweeting, Michael
Ramond, Anna
Chung, Ryan
Kaptoge, Stephen
Walker, Matthew
Bolton, Thomas
Sambrook, Jennifer
Moore, Carmel
McMahon, Amy
Fahle, Sarah
Cullen, Donna
Mehenny, Susan
Wood, Angela M.
Armitage, Jane
Ouwehand, Willem H.
Miflin, Gail
Roberts, David J.
Danesh, John
Di Angelantonio, Emanuele
author_sort Bell, Steven
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare four haemoglobin measurement methods in whole blood donors. BACKGROUND: To safeguard donors, blood services measure haemoglobin concentration in advance of each donation. NHS Blood and Transplant's (NHSBT) customary method have been capillary gravimetry (copper sulphate), followed by venous spectrophotometry (HemoCue) for donors failing gravimetry. However, NHSBT's customary method results in 10% of donors being inappropriately bled (ie, with haemoglobin values below the regulatory threshold). METHODS: We compared the following four methods in 21 840 blood donors (aged ≥18 years) recruited from 10 NHSBT centres in England, with the Sysmex XN‐2000 haematology analyser, the reference standard: (1) NHSBT's customary method; (2) “post donation” approach, that is, estimating current haemoglobin concentration from that measured by a haematology analyser at a donor's most recent prior donation; (3) “portable haemoglobinometry” (using capillary HemoCue); (4) non‐invasive spectrometry (using MBR Haemospect or Orsense NMB200). We assessed sensitivity; specificity; proportion who would have been inappropriately bled, or rejected from donation (“deferred”) incorrectly; and test preference. RESULTS: Compared with the reference standard, the methods ranged in test sensitivity from 17.0% (MBR Haemospect) to 79.0% (portable haemoglobinometry) in men, and from 19.0% (MBR Haemospect) to 82.8% (portable haemoglobinometry) in women. For specificity, the methods ranged from 87.2% (MBR Haemospect) to 99.9% (NHSBT's customary method) in men, and from 74.1% (Orsense NMB200) to 99.8% (NHSBT's customary method) in women. The proportion of donors who would have been inappropriately bled ranged from 2.2% in men for portable haemoglobinometry to 18.9% in women for MBR Haemospect. The proportion of donors who would have been deferred incorrectly with haemoglobin concentration above the minimum threshold ranged from 0.1% in men for NHSBT's customary method to 20.3% in women for OrSense. Most donors preferred non‐invasive spectrometry. CONCLUSION: In the largest study reporting head‐to‐head comparisons of four methods to measure haemoglobin prior to blood donation, our results support replacement of NHSBT's customary method with portable haemoglobinometry.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8048787
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80487872021-04-20 Comparison of four methods to measure haemoglobin concentrations in whole blood donors (COMPARE): A diagnostic accuracy study Bell, Steven Sweeting, Michael Ramond, Anna Chung, Ryan Kaptoge, Stephen Walker, Matthew Bolton, Thomas Sambrook, Jennifer Moore, Carmel McMahon, Amy Fahle, Sarah Cullen, Donna Mehenny, Susan Wood, Angela M. Armitage, Jane Ouwehand, Willem H. Miflin, Gail Roberts, David J. Danesh, John Di Angelantonio, Emanuele Transfus Med Original Articles OBJECTIVE: To compare four haemoglobin measurement methods in whole blood donors. BACKGROUND: To safeguard donors, blood services measure haemoglobin concentration in advance of each donation. NHS Blood and Transplant's (NHSBT) customary method have been capillary gravimetry (copper sulphate), followed by venous spectrophotometry (HemoCue) for donors failing gravimetry. However, NHSBT's customary method results in 10% of donors being inappropriately bled (ie, with haemoglobin values below the regulatory threshold). METHODS: We compared the following four methods in 21 840 blood donors (aged ≥18 years) recruited from 10 NHSBT centres in England, with the Sysmex XN‐2000 haematology analyser, the reference standard: (1) NHSBT's customary method; (2) “post donation” approach, that is, estimating current haemoglobin concentration from that measured by a haematology analyser at a donor's most recent prior donation; (3) “portable haemoglobinometry” (using capillary HemoCue); (4) non‐invasive spectrometry (using MBR Haemospect or Orsense NMB200). We assessed sensitivity; specificity; proportion who would have been inappropriately bled, or rejected from donation (“deferred”) incorrectly; and test preference. RESULTS: Compared with the reference standard, the methods ranged in test sensitivity from 17.0% (MBR Haemospect) to 79.0% (portable haemoglobinometry) in men, and from 19.0% (MBR Haemospect) to 82.8% (portable haemoglobinometry) in women. For specificity, the methods ranged from 87.2% (MBR Haemospect) to 99.9% (NHSBT's customary method) in men, and from 74.1% (Orsense NMB200) to 99.8% (NHSBT's customary method) in women. The proportion of donors who would have been inappropriately bled ranged from 2.2% in men for portable haemoglobinometry to 18.9% in women for MBR Haemospect. The proportion of donors who would have been deferred incorrectly with haemoglobin concentration above the minimum threshold ranged from 0.1% in men for NHSBT's customary method to 20.3% in women for OrSense. Most donors preferred non‐invasive spectrometry. CONCLUSION: In the largest study reporting head‐to‐head comparisons of four methods to measure haemoglobin prior to blood donation, our results support replacement of NHSBT's customary method with portable haemoglobinometry. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2020-12-20 2021-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8048787/ /pubmed/33341984 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tme.12750 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Transfusion Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Blood Transfusion Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Bell, Steven
Sweeting, Michael
Ramond, Anna
Chung, Ryan
Kaptoge, Stephen
Walker, Matthew
Bolton, Thomas
Sambrook, Jennifer
Moore, Carmel
McMahon, Amy
Fahle, Sarah
Cullen, Donna
Mehenny, Susan
Wood, Angela M.
Armitage, Jane
Ouwehand, Willem H.
Miflin, Gail
Roberts, David J.
Danesh, John
Di Angelantonio, Emanuele
Comparison of four methods to measure haemoglobin concentrations in whole blood donors (COMPARE): A diagnostic accuracy study
title Comparison of four methods to measure haemoglobin concentrations in whole blood donors (COMPARE): A diagnostic accuracy study
title_full Comparison of four methods to measure haemoglobin concentrations in whole blood donors (COMPARE): A diagnostic accuracy study
title_fullStr Comparison of four methods to measure haemoglobin concentrations in whole blood donors (COMPARE): A diagnostic accuracy study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of four methods to measure haemoglobin concentrations in whole blood donors (COMPARE): A diagnostic accuracy study
title_short Comparison of four methods to measure haemoglobin concentrations in whole blood donors (COMPARE): A diagnostic accuracy study
title_sort comparison of four methods to measure haemoglobin concentrations in whole blood donors (compare): a diagnostic accuracy study
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8048787/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33341984
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tme.12750
work_keys_str_mv AT bellsteven comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT sweetingmichael comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT ramondanna comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT chungryan comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT kaptogestephen comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT walkermatthew comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT boltonthomas comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT sambrookjennifer comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT moorecarmel comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT mcmahonamy comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT fahlesarah comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT cullendonna comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT mehennysusan comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT woodangelam comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT armitagejane comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT ouwehandwillemh comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT miflingail comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT robertsdavidj comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT daneshjohn comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT diangelantonioemanuele comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy
AT comparisonoffourmethodstomeasurehaemoglobinconcentrationsinwholeblooddonorscompareadiagnosticaccuracystudy