4.2 Article

Use of capillary blood count parameters in adults

Journal

VOX SANGUINIS
Volume 93, Issue 4, Pages 348-353

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2007.00978.x

Keywords

blood counts; blood donors; capillary; haematologic disease; venous

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Objectives Capillary samples can provide blood for cell counts in haematologic patients and blood donors. However, some accept only values from venous blood. This study compares capillary and venous blood counts to verify the hypothesis that they are equivalent. Materials and Methods We analysed 463 capillary (fingerstick) and venous blood samples from 428 adults of both sexes (71% haematologic patients, 29% potential blood and apheresis donors). Both samples were taken at the same time from each subject. Haemoglobin (Hb), haematocrit (Hct), white blood cells (WBC), platelets, red blood cells (RBC), mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean corpuscular Hb (MCH)and mean corpuscular Hb concentration ( MCHC) were measured using a haematology analyser (Advia 120, Bayer). Results Capillary Hb, Hct, WBC, RBC, MCV and MCH were all significantly higher than the venous values [+0 center dot 2 mmol/ l (+0 center dot 3 g/dl), +0 center dot 02 l/l (+2%), +0 center dot 2 x 10(9)/l, +0 center dot 1x10(12)/l, +3 center dot 1 fl and +0 center dot 01 fmol, respectively], whereas the capillary MCHC was lower (-0 center dot 6 mmol/l). There was no difference in platelets (-1 x 10(9)/l). Capillary Hb and Hct values were higher in patients with anaemia and polycythaemia, respectively. However, no significant differences occurred in severe thrombocytopenia. Conclusion In adult haematologic patients, however, only the differences in Hb and Hct values may be of clinical relevance. For potential blood and apheresis donors, Hb and platelet screening are equivalent with either capillary and venous blood using a haematology analyser.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available