EVALUATION OF THE VALIDITY OF HEMOCUE HB 201+ FOR PREDONATION ASSESSMENT OF LOW AND HIGH HAEMOGLOBIN LEVELS IN BLOOD DONORS: ONE YEAR PROSPECTIVE STUDY IN BLOOD BANK OF GMC DODA

Introduction: Predonation assessment of haemoglobin in blood donors is important to avoid unnecessary rejection of potential blood donors. Compared to the conventional screening methods for haemoglobin assessment the method to be used in blood banks needs to be rapid, sensitive and accurate for both low and high haemoglobin values. Materials and methods: This was a prospective study conducted in blood bank of GMC Doda w.e.f 1st April 2020 to 31st March 2021. Finger prick samples were taken from 1214 potential blood donors and hemoglobin was estimated using HemoCue Hb 201+. Also venous samples of potential blood donors were obtained and run on automated haematologyanalysers. The values were compared. Male donors with haemoglobin in the range of 12.5g/dl -18.5g/dl and females with hemoglobin in the range of 12.5g/dl -16.5g/dl were considered fit for donation. Results: We analyzed that haemoglobin levels measured by HemoCue Hb 201+ were higher than those measured by automated haematologyanalyser. We found a significant correlation between the standard method and HemoCue Hb 201+ for haemoglobin levels less than 12.5 g/dL. However the correlation was found to be less for high haemoglobin levels >18.5g/dl. Sixty percent of donors, who had haemoglobin levels higher than upper limit were unnecessarily rejected accounting for high deferral rate. Conclusion: We concluded that HemoCue Hb 201+ was suitable for screening for low haemoglobin in blood donors. Male predominance among blood donors and topography of this particular area accounts for donors with haemoglobin values near upper limit which were falsely deferred on the basis of HemoCue Hb 201+. Also testing with this method was found to be expensive, so it was recommended that qualitative methods should be used for primary screening among blood donors and accurate quantitative methods to be used only when qualitative methods fail.