Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Clinical Chemistry 48: 936-939, 2002;
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (10)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Haeckel, R.
Right arrow Articles by Viebrock, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Haeckel, R.
Right arrow Articles by Viebrock, C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Endocrinology and Metabolism
(Clinical Chemistry. 2002;48:936-939.)
© 2002 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.


Technical Briefs

Comparability of Blood Glucose Concentrations Measured in Different Sample Systems for Detecting Glucose Intolerance

Rainer Haeckel2a, Ute Brinck1, Dubravka Colic2, Hans-Uwe Janka1, Isabel Püntmann2, Jörg Schneider2 and Carsten Viebrock2

1 Zentralkrankenhaus Bremen-Nord, 28755 Bremen, Germany

2 Zentralkrankenhaus Sankt-Juergen-Strasse, 28205 Bremen, Germany

aauthor for correspondence: fax 49-421-4973334, e-mail info{at}zkh-bremen-mitte.de

Glucose concentrations are usually measured in whole blood or plasma. Plasma values are influenced by the concentration of proteins, especially those with large volumes, such as lipoproteins. Blood values additionally depend on the total volume of the various blood cells, which is usually expressed as the hematocrit (1)(2).

The interconversion of glucose values for venous and capillary blood is further complicated by the arteriovenous difference. In the fasting state, the glucose concentrations in arterial, capillary, and (forearm) venous blood are supposed to be almost indistinguishable. In contrast, arterial blood glucose values may differ by 20% or as much as 70% in the postprandial state (3)(4). The mean arteriovenous differences are largest in lean nondiabetic individuals, smallest in diabetic individuals, and larger in deep veins than in superficial vessels (1)(5). Other factors can influence the differences in glucose concentrations among the various samples (6)(7)(8)(9). Thus, the conversion of concentration values from one system (or sample type) to another is subject to unpredictable errors.

Several authors have already rejected the practice of converting glucose concentrations and have recommended that plasma be used for all glucose determinations (2)(10)(11). In a recent editorial, glucose measurement in whole blood was considered anachronistic (12), but only whole blood is used by home monitoring and near-patient monitoring devices. Many laboratories measure the glucose concentration in whole blood, especially in capillary whole blood, for therapeutic monitoring and for diagnosing hypo-, normo-, and hyperglycemia. However, the applicability of whole blood for determining glucose intolerance is still a matter of debate. Many practitioners tend to use capillary blood (CB) for diagnostic purposes (13)(14). The decision limits usually applied for whole blood are those recommended by WHO (15)(16)(17) and the American Diabetes Association (18), which are based on epidemiologic studies with venous plasma (VP). In practice, either measured values or decision limits are converted from one sample system to another. The present study was undertaken to reinvestigate the comparability of glucose determinations in venous blood (VB), VP, and CB.

The study group consisted of 147 individuals from outpatient departments (internal medicine and dermatology) who were able to walk to the laboratory for blood collection (age range, 25–76 years). Using values recommended by WHO (15)(16) for the classification of plasma glucose concentrations, we separated the individuals into three groups according to whether they displayed a "healthy" (n = 74), impaired (n = 36), or diabetic glucose tolerance (n = 37). Oral glucose tolerance tests (GTTs) were performed according to WHO recommendations (15)(16). Participants ingested 75 g of glucose as Dextro O.G-T. (Roche Diagnostics).

VB samples were drawn into 2.7-mL monovettes containing lithium heparinate (cat. no. 05.1553; Sarstedt AG). Capillary and VB samples were collected within 2 min of each other by separate medical staff. Plasma was prepared within 10 min of blood sampling.

Glucose concentrations were determined in 500 µL of hemolyzing reagent plus 10 µL of blood or plasma (collected in heparinized end-to-end glass capillaries; cat. no. 19.414; Sarstedt AG) with an EBIO plus 6668 analyzer (Eppendorf AG) using glucose oxidase-containing electrodes (19) within 2 h of sampling. Glucose concentrations in hemolyzed samples were stable for at least 24 h. The results obtained with the glucose analyzer were referred to a glucose solution (11.11 mmol/L; certified primary reference material from NIST). All procedures were subjected to internal and external quality assurance programs. Control materials (Validate A and N) were purchased from Organon Teknika. The mean value (± SD) obtained for Validate A (lot no. 6B403; assigned value, 11.54 mmol/L) over 24 days was 11.55 ± 0.39 mmol/L glucose, and that for Validate N (lot no. 6B401; assigned value, 5.21 mmol/L) was 5.35 ± 0.20 mmol/L (obtained over 28 days).

All calculations were performed with mean values from duplicates. The relationship between concentration ratio (target quantity) and time-specific metabolic and disease state was modeled by a linear mixed-effects model (20) using the mixed procedure of the SAS 6.12 package.

The mean VP/VB ratio from all determinations during the tolerance tests was 1.148 (Table 1 ), increasing slightly but statistically not significantly (P = 0.37) from the healthy to the diabetic group (Table 1 ). This increase appeared to be constant throughout the GTT. The mean VP/CB ratio was 1.048. The VP/CB ratio was related to the nutritional state, being 1.084 in the fasted and 0.972 in the postprandial state in healthy nondiabetic individuals (P <0.001). In contrast, the VP/CB ratio remained almost constant after a glucose load in diabetic individuals (P = 0.92). The VP/CB ratio was higher in diabetic than in nondiabetic individuals (P <0.001). According to these results, the WHO recommendation for the 2-h postload CB cutoff should be reduced from 11.1 to 10.0 mmol/L. The clinical consequence would be the detection of more diabetic individuals. The CB/VB ratio (Table 1 ) increased during the GTT only in normotolerant individuals (P <0.001) and was lower in the diabetic than in the nondiabetic group (P <0.001). Individual ratios varied considerably. The ranges were 0.74–1.66 for the VP/VB ratio and 0.52–1.63 for the VP/CB ratio (Table 1 ).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Ratio of the glucose concentrations in VP, VB, and CB during oral GTTs.

Glucose concentrations are usually converted from one sample system to another by use of fixed factors. These factors are either derived from the water content of the different compartments (water distribution theory) or from the glucose concentrations determined with analytical procedures (ratio of mean values or equation of regression lines).

The considerable variation in the conversion factors was demonstrated by the range of conversion factors (Table 1Up ). A large variation in the percentage difference between blood and plasma glucose concentrations has already been reported by others (2)(21)(22)(23). Mean VP/VB ratios reported in the literature (2)(10)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25) also vary from 1.04 (24) to 1.183 (2). The mean ratio in this study was 1.148. The even greater variation of the VP/CB ratio is probably attributable to the arteriovenous difference. The interindividual VP/CB ratio was related to the nutritional state, confirming an earlier report by Larsson-Cohn (26). The mean ratio from the entire GTT was 1.09-fold higher in diabetics than in healthy individuals (Table 1Up ). A higher VP/CP ratio has also been observed in gestational diabetes (27) and was explained by a decrease in the arteriovenous difference. Lind et al. (21) found that the differences between these two sample systems in the fasting state were too trivial to be worth correcting for healthy and pregnant women. However, in diabetics, the VP/CB ratio cannot be neglected.

In conclusion, conversion of glucose concentrations determined in different sample systems by use of factors is an oversimplification and probably leads to unpredictable rates of discordant disease classifications. These problems are becoming more relevant with the widespread use of point-of-care testing instruments, including blood gas analyzers with integrated glucose sensors that measure glucose in the plasma water fraction. The only solution for this dilemma is to use only one sample system. The experimental data clearly indicate that the use of plasma should be preferred to diagnose glucose intolerance, including diabetes. The logistic disadvantages are the centrifugation step and the prevention of glycolysis. In the present study, in vitro glycolysis could be neglected. In cases in which samples may need 2–4 h until processing can be started in the laboratory, unpredictable glycolysis will occur, even in the presence of fluoride (28)(29). Chan et al. (30) showed that delays in processing blood specimens in hospital practice may lead to misclassification in up to 7% of GTTs. Stahl et al. (31) proposed storage on ice for not more than 1 h until centrifugation. However, this recommendation may not be acceptable for many hospitals. The use of capillary hemolysate together with a reduced decision limit thus may be a second choice for the detection of diabetes.


References

  1. Marks V. Blood glucose: its measurement and clinical importance. Clin Chim Acta 1996;251:3-17.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Morrison B, Fleck A. Plasma or whole blood glucose?. Clin Chim Acta 1973;45:293-297.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Duffy T, Phillips N, Pellegrin F. Review of glucose tolerance—a problem in methodology. Am J Med Sci 1973;265:117-133.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Bürgi W. Oraler Glukosetoleranztest: unterschiedlicher Verlauf der kapillären und venösen Belastungskurven. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1974;104:1698-1699.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Fitzgerald MG, Keen H. Diagnostic classification of diabetes. Br Med J 1964;1:1568.[Free Full Text]
  6. Rigas DA. Electrolyte, nitrogen, and water content of human leukemic leukocytes: relation to cell maturity. J Lab Clin Med 1961;39:234-241.
  7. von Bubnoff M, Riecker G. Zellosmolalität und Zellwassergehalt. Klinische und experimentelle Untersuchungen an Erythrocyten. Klin Wochenschr 1961;39:724-733.[Web of Science]
  8. Kessler E, Levy MR, Allen RL. Red cell electrolytes in patients with edema. J Lab Clin Med 1961;57:32-41.
  9. Kogawa H, Yabushita N, Nakajima T, Kageyama K. Studies on in vitro effect of free fatty acids on water content and osmotic fragility of rabbit erythrocytes. Life Sci 1998;62:823-828.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Holtkamp HC, Verhoef NJ, Leijnse B. The difference between the glucose concentrations in plasma and whole blood. Clin Chim Acta 1975;59:41-49.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Wiener K. Whole blood glucose: what are we actually measuring?. Ann Clin Biochem 1995;32:1-8.
  12. Rainey PM, Jatlow P. Monitoring blood glucose meters [Editorial]. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;103:125-126.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Stahl M, Brandslund I, Iversen S, Filtenbourg JA. Quality assessment of blood glucose testing in general practitioners’ offices improves quality. Clin Chem 1997;43:1926-1931.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Bübling KI, Reweck C, Henrich W, Nanz J, Stein U, Dudenhausen JW. Use of five portable glucose meters in performance of the 50-g glucose-challenge test (GCT) in pregnancy. Clin Chem 2001;47:A179.
  15. . World Health Organization. WHO Study Group on Diabetes Mellitus. Technical Report Series 727 1985 WHO Geneva. .
  16. . World Health Organization. WHO Study Group on Diabetes mellitus. Technical Report Series 844 1994 WHO Geneva. .
  17. Alberti KGMM, Zimmet PZ. Definition and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. Part 1. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Provisional report of a WHO consultation. Diabet Med 1998;15:539-553.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. . American Diabetes Association. Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 1997;20:1183-1197.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Treskes M, Adriaansen HJ, van der Leur SJCM, Idema RN, Péquériaux N, Pronk C. Multicentre evaluation of the EBIO plus glucose analyser. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1996;34:777-784.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Diggle PJ, Liang KY, Zeger SL. Analysis of longitudinal data 1994:78-115 Oxford University Press Oxford. .
  21. Lind T, de Groot HA, Brown G, Cheyne GA. Observations on blood glucose and insulin determinations. Br Med J 1972;3:320-323.
  22. Tustison WA, Bowen A, Crampton J. Clinical interpretation of plasma glucose values. Diabetes 1966;15:775-777.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. McDonald GW, Fisher G, Burnham CE. Differences in glucose determinations obtained from plasma or whole blood. Public Health Rep 1964;79:515-518.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Ingram P, Ingram S, Turtle S, Sturrock S, Applegarth D. Comparison of glucose determinations obtained from whole blood and plasma. Clin Biochem 1971;4:297-301.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Parker DR, Yip KF. Relationships of glucose concentrations in capillary plasma, capillary whole blood, venous plasma and venous whole blood. Clin Chem Lab Med 1999;37:S352.
  26. Larsson-Cohn U. Differences between capillary and venous blood glucose during oral glucose tolerance tests. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1976;36:805-808.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Weiss PAM, Haeusler M, Kainer F, Pürstner P, Haas J. Toward universal criteria for gestational diabetes: relationships between seventy-five and one hundred gram glucose loads and between capillary and venous glucose concentrations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:830-835.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Chan AYW, Swaminathan R, Cockram CS. Effectiveness of sodium fluoride as a preservative of glucose in blood. Clin Chem 1989;35:315-317.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Lin YL, Smith CH, Dietzler DN. Stabilization of blood glucose by cooling with ice: an effective procedure for preservation of samples from adults and newborns. Clin Chem 1976;22:2031-2033.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Chan AYW, Cockram CS, Swaminathan R. Effect of delay in separating plasma for glucose measurement upon the interpretation of oral glucose tolerance tests. Ann Clin Biochem 1990;27:73-74.
  31. Stahl M, Jörgensen LGM, Hylthoft Petersen P, Brandslund I, De Fine Olivarius N, Borch-Johnsen K. Optimization of preanalytical conditions and analysis of plasma glucose. 1. Impact of the new WHO and ADA recommendations on diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Scand J Clin Invest 2001;61:169-180.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]



The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
K. A Hatonen, M. E Simila, J. R Virtamo, J. G Eriksson, M.-L. Hannila, H. K Sinkko, J. E Sundvall, H. M Mykkanen, and L. M Valsta
Methodologic considerations in the measurement of glycemic index: glycemic response to rye bread, oatmeal porridge, and mashed potato.
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, November 1, 2006; 84(5): 1055 - 1061.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (10)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Haeckel, R.
Right arrow Articles by Viebrock, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Haeckel, R.
Right arrow Articles by Viebrock, C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Endocrinology and Metabolism


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS