Abstract
Background
Capillary blood collection offers a less burdensome alternative to venous sampling and may improve access to laboratory testing in resource-limited settings. However, manual procedures can yield pre-analytical variation, resulting in the need for skilled personnel. To address these limitations, we developed a prototype device that automates fingertip blood collection.
Methods
The device automatically punctures a fingertip using a disposable lancet, applies intermittent compression to the fingertip using a cuff, sequentially collects blood into two microtubes, and completes hemostasis with gauze. We evaluated the device in 58 healthy volunteers aged 20–60 years by comparing capillary blood collected with the device to venous blood via standard phlebotomy. Paired samples were processed and analyzed under hospital laboratory quality control. Measurements included 8 CBC parameters, glucose and HbA1c in whole blood, 3 electrolytes, and 15 biochemical analytes in serum. Agreement was assessed using Deming regression, and bias with 95% confidence intervals at medical decision levels (MDLs) was calculated.
Results
Most analytes exhibited biases within the allowable limits defined by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), except for white blood cell count (WBC), potassium (K), lactate dehydrogenase (LD), and glucose. Compared with the BD MiniDraw™, which involves manual finger compression, our device showed greater biases in WBC and K, likely due to the margination effect and hemolysis, respectively—both enhanced by stronger compression.
Conclusion
The device demonstrated acceptable analytical performance for most parameters. Optimizing compression strength and duration may reduce bias. Automated capillary collection could support decentralized testing and reduce phlebotomy workload.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
