SUMMARY
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) usual method has been capillary gravimetry (copper sulphate), followed by venous HemoCue® (spectrophotometry) for donors failing gravimetry. However, gravimetry/venous HemoCue® results in 10% of donors being inappropriately bled (i.e., with haemoglobin values below the regulatory threshold).
Methods The following were compared in 21,840 blood donors (aged ≥18 years) recruited from 10 mobile centres of NHSBT in England, with each method compared with the Sysmex XN-2000 haematology analyser, the reference standard: 1) gravimetry/venous HemoCue®; 2) “post donation” approach, i.e., estimating current haemoglobin concentration from that measured by a haematology analyser at a donor’s most recent prior donation; 3) capillary HemoCue®; and 4) non-invasive spectrometry (MBR Haemospect® or Orsense NMB200®). We assessed each method for sensitivity; specificity; proportion of donors 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% (HemoCue®) in men, and from 19.0% (MBR Haemospect®) to 82.8% (HemoCue®) in women. For specificity, the methods ranged from 87.2% (MBR Haemospect®) to 99.9% (gravimetry/venous HemoCue®) in men, and from 74.1% (Orsense NMB200®) to 99.8% (gravimetry/venous HemoCue®) in women. The proportion of donors who would have been inappropriately bled ranged from 2.2% in men for HemoCue® 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 gravimetry/venous HemoCue® 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 venous HemoCue® with the capillary HemoCue® when donors fail gravimetry. These results have had direct translational implications for NHS Blood and Transplant in England.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding was provided by NHSBT and the NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit (BTRU) in Donor Health and Genomics (NIHR BTRU-2014-10024). DNA extraction and genotyping were co-funded by the NIHR BTRU and the NIHR BioResource (http://bioresource.nihr.ac.uk). The academic coordinating centre for COMPARE was supported by core funding from: NIHR BTRU, UK Medical Research Council (MR/L003120/1), British Heart Foundation (RG/13/13/30194; RG/18/13/33946) and the NIHR [Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre at the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust] [*]. The academic coordinating centre would like to thank blood donor centre staff and blood donors for participating in the COMPARE study. This work was supported by Health Data Research UK, which is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation and Wellcome. *The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN90871183), and approved by the National Research Ethics Service (15/EE/0335).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data are available upon request
