PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU 2017; 07(04): 011-015
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1709243
Original Article

Comparative Evaluation of Pre-Donation Haemoglobin Screening Methods

Chandrika Rao
1   Assistant Professor and Blood Bank Officer, Department of Pathology, Mangalore
,
Sanjana D. S.
2   MBBS Student, K S Hegde Medical Academy Derlakatte, Mangalore
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
  als PDF herunterladen Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background:The pre-donation haemoglobin (Hb) estimation is the only laboratory test done on blood donors to determine an individual's eligibility to donate blood with an intention to prevent bleeding an anaemic donor. With availability of wide range of screening methods, no single technique has emerged as the most appropriate and ideal for screening blood donors. The primary objective of the study was to compare results of copper sulphate method and haemoglobin meter with the gold standard Cyanmeth hemoglobin (CyanHb) method.

Materials and methods : Prospective observational study done in 238 blood donors. Sample analyses were done using Copper sulphate solution, haemoglobin meter and Cyanmeth haemoglobin method.

Results : Mean values of three methods Cyanmeth haemoglobin, and Haemoglobin meter methods are 12.5±2.2, and 13.08±1.61 respectively. Haemoglobin values obtained by haemoglobin meter and copper sulphate methods were comparable, with sensitivity of 94.25% and 94.47% respectively.

Conclusion : CuSo4 method and haemoglobin meter can be used alternatively based on resources available. The higher values obtained by CyanHb method could be due to turbidity factor of the lipids in the blood sample.

Keywords

Haemoglobin - CuSo4 - Cyanmeth - Donor Screening


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 12. März 2017

Angenommen: 12. August 2017

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
21. April 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Tondon R, Verma A, Pandey P, Chaudary R. Quality evaluation of four hemoglobin screening methods in a blood donor setting along with their comparative cost analysis in an Indian scenario. Asian J Tranfus Sci. 2009; 3:66-9.
  • 2 Sari M, DePee S, Martini E, Herman S, Sugiatmi, Bloem MW et al. Estimating the prevalence of anemia: a comparison of three methods. Bulletin of WHO 2001; 79:506-11.
  • 3 The Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics rules 1945, Amendment upto 2013.
  • 4 Nkrumah B, Nguah SB, Sarpong N, Dekker D, Idriss A, May J et al. Hemoglobin estimation by the HemoCue portable hemoglobin photometer in a resource poor setting. BMC Clinical pathology 2011; 11:5.
  • 5 Malukani P, MD Gajjar, RN Gonsai, Bhatnagar N, HM Goswami. Study of newer invasive and noninvasive methods of hemoglobin estimation in blood donor screening- a study on 200 donors. Int J Res Rev 2014; 6:26-30.
  • 6 Radtke H, Polat G, Kalus U, Salama A, Kiesewetter H. haemoglobin screening in prospective blood donors: Comparison of different blood samples and different quantitative methods. Transfus apher Sci 2005;33:31-5.
  • 7 Gupta S, Mehra R, Jain A, Maheshwari U. Comparative study of hemoglobin estimation of blood donors by specific gravity, HemoCue and Automated cell counter methods. IJRSR 2015; 6:5608-11.
  • 8 ICSH. Re commendat ions for Refe renc e method for Hemoglobinometry in Human Blood (ICSH standard 1995) and specifications for International Hemoglobincyamide standard (4th edition). J Clin Pathol 1996;49:271-4.
  • 9 Rosenblit J, Abreu CR, Szterling LN, Kutner JM, Hamerschlak N, Frutuoso P et al. Evaluation of Three Methods for Hemoglobin Measurement in a Blood Donor Setting. Sau Paulo medical journal 1999; 117:108-12.
  • 10 Srivastava T, Negandhi H, Neogi SB, Sharma Jand Saxena R. Methods for Hemoglobin Estimation: A Review of “What Works”. J HematolTransfus 2014; 2:1028.
  • 11 Mohan G, Bhaskaran R, Sudha SP and Thomas T. Comparison of Pre donation Hemoglobin Screening Methods - Implications of Quality and Cost 2016; 3:2454-7379.