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),...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |