Ann Lab Med.  2013 Jul;33(4):261-267. 10.3343/alm.2013.33.4.261.

Comparison of the Accuracy of Noninvasive Hemoglobin Sensor (NBM-200) and Portable Hemoglobinometer (HemoCue) with an Automated Hematology Analyzer (LH500) in Blood Donor Screening

• Kim MJ
• Park Q
• Kim MH
• Shin JW
• Kim HO

• KMID: 1707233
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2013.33.4.261

Abstract

BACKGROUND
The Hb levels of prospective blood donors are usually determined using a finger prick test. A new noninvasive Hb device has the advantage of not causing any sampling pain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the noninvasive Hb sensor and to compare its measurements with those of a currently used portable hemoglobinometer.
METHODS
Hb was measured using a noninvasive Hb sensor (NBM-200; OrSense, Israel), a portable hemoglobinometer (HemoCue; HemoCue AB, Sweden), and an automated hematology analyzer (LH500; Beckman Coulter, USA). The correlations between Hb measurements taken by the NBM-200 and HemoCue with those by an automated hematology analyzer were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Hb measurements were compared among 3 different Hb level groups.
RESULTS
The mean Hb values of 506 blood donors were 14.1 g/dL by the NBM-200, 14.0 g/dL by the LH500, and 14.3 g/dL by the HemoCue. The correlation between the LH500 and the NBM-200 was substantial (ICC=0.69), while that between the LH500 and the HemoCue agreed almost perfectly (ICC=0.86).
CONCLUSIONS
The possibility to judge to be eligible for donors who are ineligible to donate was substantial when using NBM-200. Even though the NBM-200 has the apparent advantage of noninvasiveness, its use in pre-screening should be given meticulous attention. Since pre-donation testing is crucial to protecting donors' health, complete evaluation of the instrument should be performed prior to use.

Keyword

Blood donors; Donor selection; Hemoglobin; Safety management

MeSH Terms

Automation
Biosensing Techniques/*instrumentation
Blood Chemical Analysis/*instrumentation
Blood Donors
Donor Selection/*methods
Female
Hemoglobins/*analysis
Humans
Male
Sensitivity and Specificity
Hemoglobins

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Histograms of the hemoglobin levels measured using the LH500 (A), the NBM-200 (B), and the HemoCue (C).

• 

  Fig. 2 Scatter plots of the hemoglobin levels measured using the LH500 vs. the NBM-200 (A) and the hemoglobin levels measured using the LH500 vs. the HemoCue (B).

• 

  Fig. 3 Bland-Altman plot of the difference between the LH500 and the 2 point-of-care testing devices (A, NBM-200; B, HemoCue). Abbreviation: AHA, automated hematology analzyer.

Reference

1. Cable RG. Hemoglobin determination in blood donors. Transfus Med Rev. 1995; 9:131–144. PMID: 7795331.

2. Boulton FE, Nightingale MJ, Reynolds W. Improved strategy for screening prospective blood donors for anaemia. Transfus Med. 1994; 4:221–225. PMID: 7820230.

3. James V, Jones KF, Turner EM, Sokol RJ. Statistical analysis of inappropriate results from current Hb screening methods for blood donors. Transfusion. 2003; 43:400–404. PMID: 12675728.

4. Ross DG, Gilfillan AC, Houston DE, Heaton WA. Evaluation of hemoglobin screening methods in prospective blood donors. Vox Sang. 1986; 50:78–80. PMID: 3962283.

5. Noiri E, Kobayashi N, Takamura Y, Iijima T, Takagi T, Doi K, et al. Pulse total-hemoglobinometer provides accurate noninvasive monitoring. Crit Care Med. 2005; 33:2831–2835. PMID: 16352948.

6. Neville RG. Evaluation of portable haemoglobinometer in general practice. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987; 294:1263–1265.

7. Lotfi R, Wernet D, Starke U, Northoff H, Cassens U. A noninvasive strategy for screening prospective blood donors for anemia. Transfusion. 2005; 45:1585–1592. PMID: 16181209.

8. Gayat E, Aulagnier J, Matthieu E, Boisson M, Fischler M. Non-invasive measurement of hemoglobin: assessment of two different point-of-care technologies. PLoS One. 2012; 7:e30065. PMID: 22238693.

9. Landis JR. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33:159–174. PMID: 843571.

10. Dhingra-Kumar N. CuSO₄ gravimetric method for Hb screening of prospective donors--should it be discarded? Transfus Med. 1997; 7:245–247. PMID: 9316227.

11. Sawant RB, Bharucha ZS, Rajadhyaksha SB. Evaluation of hemoglobin of blood donors deferred by the copper sulphate method for hemoglobin estimation. Transfus Apher Sci. 2007; 36:143–148. PMID: 17382593.

12. Bhaskaram P, Balakrishna N, Radhakrishna KV, Krishnaswamy K. Validation of hemoglobin estimation using Hemocue. Indian J Pediatr. 2003; 70:25–28. PMID: 12619948.

13. Neufeld L, García-Guerra A, Sánchez-Francia D, Newton-Sánchez O, Ramírez-Villalobos MD, Rivera-Dommarco J. Hemoglobin measured by Hemocue and a reference method in venous and capillary blood: a validation study. Salud Publica Mex. 2002; 44:219–227. PMID: 12132319.

14. Prakash S, Kapil U, Singh G, Dwivedi SN, Tandon M. Utility of HemoCue in estimation of hemoglobin against standard blood cell counter method. J Assoc Physicians India. 1999; 47:995–997. PMID: 10778695.

15. Gordeuk VR, Brittenham GM, Bravo J, Hughes MA, Keating LJ. Prevention of iron deficiency with carbonyl iron in female blood donors. Transfusion. 1990; 30:239–245. PMID: 2180144.

16. Cogswell ME, Parvanta I, Yip R, Brittenham GM. Innaccuracy of capillary hemoglobin testing for the detection of anemia and iron deficiency during pregnancy. Am J Epidemiol. 1998; 147(S5):206.

17. Bahadur S, Jain S, Jain M. Estimation of hemoglobin in blood donors: A comparative study using hemocue and cell counter. Transfus Apher Sci. 2010; 43:155–157. PMID: 20667788.

18. Conway AM, Hinchliffe RF, Earland J, Anderson LM. Measurement of haemoglobin using single drops of skin puncture blood: is precision acceptable? J Clin Pathol. 1998; 51:248–250. PMID: 9659272.

19. Mills AF. Screening for anaemia: evaluation of a haemoglobinometer. Arch Dis Child. 1989; 64:1468–1471. PMID: 2817932.