Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T12:58:45.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Venous versus Capillary Blood Samples when Measuring Blood Glucose Using a Point-of-Care, Capillary-Based Glucometer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2019

Jessica Topping ,
Matthew Reardon ,
Jake Coleman ,
Brian Hunter ,
Haruka Shojima-Perera ,
Liz Thyer  and
Paul Simpson Open the ORCID record for Paul Simpson [Opens in a new window]
Jessica Topping
Affiliation:
School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW2751Australia
Matthew Reardon
Affiliation:
School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW2751Australia
Jake Coleman
Affiliation:
School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW2751Australia
Brian Hunter
Affiliation:
School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW2751Australia
Haruka Shojima-Perera
Affiliation:
School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW2751Australia
Liz Thyer
Affiliation:
School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW2751Australia
Paul Simpson*
Affiliation:
School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW2751Australia
*
Correspondence: Paul Simpson, PhD Locked Bag 1797 Penrith, NSW 2751 Australia E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Blood glucose level (BGL) is routinely assessed by paramedics in the out-of-hospital setting. Most commonly, BGL is measured using a blood sample of capillary origin analyzed by a hand-held, point-of-care glucometer. In some clinical circumstances, the capillary sample may be replaced by blood of venous origin. Given most point-of-care glucometers are engineered to analyze capillary blood samples, the use of venous blood instead of capillary may lead to inaccurate or misleading measurements.

Hypothesis/Problem:

The aim of this prospective study was to compare mean difference in BGL between venous and capillary blood from healthy volunteers when measured using a capillary-based, hand-held, point-of-care glucometer.

Methods:

Using a prospective observational comparison design, 36 healthy participants provided paired samples of blood, one venous and the other capillary, taken near simultaneously. The BGL values were similar between the two groups. The capillary group had a range of 4.3mmol/l, with the lowest value being 4.4mmol/l and 8.7mmol/l the highest. The venous group had a range of 2.7mmol/l, with the lowest value being 4.1mmol/l and 7.0mmol/l the highest.

For the primary research question, the mean BGL for the venous sample group was 5.3mmol/l (SD = 0.6), compared to 5.6mmol/l (SD = 0.8) for the capillary group. This represented a statistically significant difference of 0.3mmol/l (P = .04), but it did not reach the a priori established point of clinical significance (1.0mmol/l). Pearson’s correlation coefficient for capillary versus venous indicated moderate correlation (r = 0.42).

Conclusion:

In healthy, non-fasted people in a non-clinical setting, a statistically significant, but not clinically significant, difference was found between venous- and capillary-derived BGL when measured using a point-of-care, capillary-based glucometer. Correlation between the two was moderate. In this context, using venous samples in a capillary-based glucometer is reasonable providing the venous sample can be gathered without exposure of the clinician to risk of needle-stick injury. In clinical settings where physiological derangement or acute illness is present, capillary sampling would remain the optimal approach.

Keywords

blood glucose levelcapillaryprehospitalvenous
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , October 2019 , pp. 506 - 509
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Strote, J, Cloyd, D, Rea, T, Eisenberg, M. The influence of emergency medical technician glucometry on paramedic involvement. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2005;9(3):318–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Funk, DL, Chan, L, Lutz, N, Verdile, VP. Comparison of capillary and venous glucose measurements in healthy volunteers. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2001;5(3):275–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, R, Leigh, B, Stuart, P. Capillary versus venous bedside blood glucose estimations. Emerg Med J. 2005;22(3):177–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, CG, Sng, CBL, Kumar, CS. Correlation of capillary and venous blood glucometry with laboratory determination. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2004;8(4):378–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atkin, SH, Dasmahapatra, A, Jaker, MA, Chorost, MI, Reddy, S. Fingerstick glucose determination in shock. Ann Int Med. 1991;114(12):1020–1024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yaraghi, A, Mood, NE, Dolatabadi, LK. Comparison of capillary and venous blood glucose levels using glucometer and laboratory blood glucose level in poisoned patients being in coma. Advanced Biomedical Research. 2015;4.Google ScholarPubMed
Cowett, RM, D’Amico, L-B. Capillary (heel stick) versus venous blood sampling for the determination of glucose concentration in the neonate. Neonatology. 1992;62(1):32–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, CP, Faustich, M, Burns, J, Fraser, M, Whitaker, L, Klugman, M. The relationship between capillary and venous glucose concentration during pregnancy. Am J Obstetrics Gynecology. 1986;155(1):61–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freckmann, G, Schmid, C, Baumstark, A, Rutschmann, M, Haug, C, Heinemann, L. Analytical performance requirements for systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose with focus on system accuracy: relevant differences among ISO 15197: 2003, ISO 15197: 2013, and current FDA recommendations. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2015;9(4):885–894.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed