The impact of noninvasive, capillary, and venous hemoglobin screening on donor deferrals and the hemoglobin content of red blood cells concentrates: a prospective study. Issue 12 (15th July 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sümnig, Ariane; Hron, Gregor; Westphal, Antje; Petersmann, Astrid; Kohlmann, Thomas; Greinacher, Andreas; Thiele, Thomas
• Is Part Of: Transfusion. Volume 55:Issue 12(2015)
• Page Start: 2847
• Page End: 2854
• Publication Date: 2015-07-15
• Subjects: Hematology -- Periodicals; Blood -- Transfusion -- Periodicals; Blood Group Antigens -- Periodicals; Blood Preservation -- Periodicals; Blood Transfusion -- Periodicals; 615
• DOI: 10.1111/trf.13241
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0041-1132

Abstract

Abstract : BACKGROUND: Hemoglobin (Hb) is screened before whole blood donation to protect donors from anemia. Recently, noninvasive methods have become available for Hb screening in blood donors. We compared a noninvasive, a capillary, and a venous method for Hb screening of blood donors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Consecutive donors were prospectively screened using a noninvasive (Masimo Pronto‐7), a capillary (HemoCue Hb 301), and a venipuncture‐based method as gold standard (Siemens Advia 2120i) for Hb determination. All measurements were performed in parallel and in duplicate. A cutoff Hb value of 125 g/L (females) and 135 g/L (males) was used for donor acceptance. RESULTS: A total of 553 donors were analyzed; in 38 donors (7%) the noninvasive Hb method was not applicable due to technical reasons. The noninvasive test underestimated (mean bias, −5.9 g/L; 95% limits of agreement, −25.74, 13.88) and the capillary test overestimated Hb values (mean bias, 4.3 g/L; 95% limits of agreement, −8.13, 16.71). Coefficients of variation of duplicate measurements were 1.05 (venous), 2.73 (noninvasive), and 3.23 (capillary). The noninvasive test revealed false low Hb values in 21.2% and the capillary test revealed false high Hb values in 9% of donors compared to the venous method. The negative predictive value of the noninvasive test was 94.3%. CONCLUSION: The noninvasive Hb measurement is a reasonable first‐line approach for predonation Hb screening of blood donors but a second method should be available to retest those not testable with the noninvasive device or with Hb values below the cutoffs.