Sci Rep. 2024 Jul 1;14(1):15011. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-64448-z.
ABSTRACT
This study was performed to analyze fingertip capillary blood sampling in pediatric patients using microcapillary blood collection tubes and microhematocrit tubes and to compare the blood cell analysis results obtained via these two blood collection methods. Finger capillary blood was collected from 110 outpatients using microcapillary blood collection tubes and microhematocrit tubes and complete blood count analysis was performed with a Sysmex XS-900i hematology analyzer and manual microscopy for blood cell morphology. Paired data was evaluated for agreement and bias using the microhematocrit samples as the reference group and the samples from the microcapillary blood collection tubes as the observation group. The two blood collection methods demonstrated good agreement for measuring red blood cell (RBC) parameters (i.e., RBC, Hb, Hct, MCV, MCH and MCHC), wherein the relative bias was > allowable total error (TEa) in 0.91%, 1.82%, 11.82%, 1.82%, 0.91% and 8.18% of the parameter measures, respectively. According to industry requirements, the proportion of samples meeting the acceptable bias level should be > 80%. Additionally, the estimated biases at each medical decision level were within clinically acceptable levels for RBC, Hb, Hct, and MCV. However, the proportion of WBC and PLT counts with relative bias > TEa was 25.45% and 35.45%, respectively. Furthermore, the relative bias of the WBC count at the medical decision level of 0.5 × 109/L and that of the PLT counts at the medical decision levels of 10 × 109/L and 50 × 109/L were clinically significant. Bland-Altman analysis further showed a mean bias of 0.66 × 109/L (95% LoA, – 0.79 to 2.11) for the WBC count and 39 × 109/L (95% LoA, – 46 to 124) for the PLT count from the blood samples collected in the microcapillary blood collection tubes compared with the counts of those collected in the microhematocrit tubes. Neutrophil, monocyte, lymphocyte, eosinophil, and PLT counts increased significantly in the microcapillary blood collection tubes compared with those in the microhematocrit tubes, along with an elevated number of instrument false alarms (P < 0.05). The two capillary blood collection devices exhibit performance differences. Therefore, clinicians should pay attention to the variation in results caused by different blood collection methods.
PMID:38951565 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-024-64448-z
