Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 44, Issue 8

Issues

Influence of the needle bore size used for collecting venous blood samples on routine clinical chemistry testing

Giuseppe Lippi
  • Istituto di Chimica e Microscopia Clinica, Dipartimento di Scienze Morfologico-Biomediche, Università degli Studi di Verona, Verona, Italy
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Gian Luca Salvagno
  • Istituto di Chimica e Microscopia Clinica, Dipartimento di Scienze Morfologico-Biomediche, Università degli Studi di Verona, Verona, Italy
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Martina Montagnana
  • Istituto di Chimica e Microscopia Clinica, Dipartimento di Scienze Morfologico-Biomediche, Università degli Studi di Verona, Verona, Italy
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Giorgio Brocco
  • Istituto di Chimica e Microscopia Clinica, Dipartimento di Scienze Morfologico-Biomediche, Università degli Studi di Verona, Verona, Italy
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Gian Cesare Guidi
  • Istituto di Chimica e Microscopia Clinica, Dipartimento di Scienze Morfologico-Biomediche, Università degli Studi di Verona, Verona, Italy
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2006-07-31 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2006.172

Abstract

Background: Despite remarkable advances in technology and laboratory automation, results of laboratory testing still suffer from a high degree of preanalytical variability. Although there is no definitive evidence, the use of small-gauge needles for venipuncture is usually discouraged to reduce the chance of producing unsuitable specimens.

Methods: The purpose of this investigation was to assess the influence of the needle size used to collect venous blood on the measurement of 14 common analytes, including free hemoglobin, the most representative enzymes, protein-bound substances and electrolytes. Results for venous blood samples collected from 20 fasting voluntary physicians using either a 23- (0.60mm×19mm) or 25-gauge-needle (0.50mm×19mm) butterfly devices with polyvinyl chloride tubing (1.40mm×300mm) were compared with reference specimens collected using a 21-gauge-needle (0.80mm×19mm) butterfly device with polyvinyl chloride tubing (1.40mm×300mm).

Results: All means for paired samples collected using the smaller needles did not differ significantly from the reference specimen by paired Student's t-test analysis. Passing-Bablok regression analysis and Pearson's or Spearman (creatine kinase, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase and chloride) correlation were acceptable for most of the analyses, although a lower correlation coefficient was observed for electrolytes. In addition, when expressed as a percentage of the mean for paired samples, the s(y,x) value exceeded the desirable bias for free hemoglobin, glucose, lactate dehydrogenase, aspartate aminotransferase, sodium, chloride, calcium and magnesium (in samples collected using both 23 G and 25 G needles) and potassium (in samples collected using a 25 G needle). Although Bland-Altman plot analysis and ±1.96 SD agreement intervals for the set of differences between values was acceptable overall, the bias was rather broad for free hemoglobin and several critical electrolytes (calcium, chloride, potassium, sodium), exceeding the respective limits for desirable bias.

Conclusions: The results of our investigation indicate that 23 G needles, if handled correctly, will not introduce any statistically or clinically significant error to the measurement results compared to a 21 G needle. For the 25 G needle, we observed increased variability for potassium compared to a 23 G needle. Small-bore needles of 25 G or less cannot be universally recommended when collecting venous blood for clinical chemistry testing and should be reserved for selected circumstances, such as in patients with problematical venous accesses and newborns. In such cases, however, the bias introduced by the use of smaller needles should always be taken into consideration when interpreting test results.

Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:1009–14.

Keywords: clinical chemistry; laboratory testing; needle; preanalytic variability; quality

References

  • 1.

    Plebani M. Towards quality specifications in extra-analytical phases of laboratory activity. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42:576–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Bonini PA, Plebani M, Ceriotti F, Francesca Rubboli F. Errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 2002; 48:691–8.Google Scholar

  • 3.

    Lippi G, Guidi GC, Mattiuzzi C, Plebani M. Preanalytical variability: the dark side of the moon in laboratory testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006; 44:358–65.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Frost MC, Meyerhoff ME. Implantable chemical sensors for real-time clinical monitoring: progress and challenges. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2002; 6:633–41.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Ernst DJ, Ernst C. Phlebotomy tools of the trade. Home Healthc Nurse 2002; 20:151–3.Google Scholar

  • 6.

    Thurgate C, Heppell S. Needle phobia – changing venepuncture practice in ambulatory care. Paediatr Nurs 2005; 17:15–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Wilcox GJ, Barnes A, Modanlou H. Does transfusion using a syringe infusion pump and small-gauge needle cause hemolysis? Transfusion 1981; 21:750–1.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Sharp MK, Mohammad SF. Scaling of hemolysis in needles and catheters. Ann Biomed Eng 1998; 26:788–97.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 9.

    Sharp MK, Mohammad SF. Hemolysis in needleless connectors for phlebotomy. ASAIO J 2003; 49:128–30.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Reference and selected procedures for the quantitative determination of hemoglobin in blood: approved standard, 3rd ed. NCCLS document H15-A3. Wayne, PA: NCCLS, 2000.Google Scholar

  • 11.

    Pearson E, D'Agostino RB, Bowman K. Tests for departure from normality: comparison of powers. Biometrika 1977; 64:231–46.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8:135–60.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    Ricos C, Alvarez V, Cava F, Garcia-Lario JV, Hernandez A, Jimenez CV, et al. Current databases on biologic variation: pros, cons and progress. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1999; 59:491–500.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    Laessig RH, Hassemer DJ, Paskey TA, Schwartz TH. The effects of 0.1% and 1.0% erythrocytes and hemolysis on serum chemistry values. Am J Clin Pathol 1976; 66:639–44.Google Scholar

  • 15.

    Deryagin BV, Gutop YV. Theory of the breakdown (rupture) of free films. Kolloidn Zh 1962; 24:370–4.Google Scholar

  • 16.

    Evans E, Heinrich V, Ludwig F, Rawicz W. Dynamic tension spectroscopy and strength of biomembranes. Biophys J 2003; 85:2342–50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 17.

    Montoya JP, Merz SI, Bartlett RH. Significant safety advantages gained with an improved pressure-regulated blood pump. J Extra Corpor Technol 1996; 28:71–8.Google Scholar

  • 18.

    Chambers SD, Bartlett RH, Ceccio SL. Hemolytic potential of hydrodynamic cavitation. J Biomech Eng 2000; 122:321–6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 19.

    Prabhu S, Kazarian T, Hakobyan N, Jabbar A, Dunham T, Valentino LA. Needles and needleless devices for infusion of anti-haemophilic factor concentrate: impact on protein structure and function. Haemophilia 2006; 12:58–61.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 20.

    Dugan L, Leech L, Speroni KG, Corriher J. Factors affecting hemolysis rates in blood samples drawn from newly placed IV sites in the emergency department. J Emerg Nurs 2005; 31:338–45.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 21.

    Miller MA, Schlueter AJ. Transfusions via hand-held syringes and small-gauge needles as risk factors for hyperkalemia. Transfusion 2004; 44:373–81.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 22.

    Lubran MM. Comparison of two methods of measurements of the same substance: an evaluation of some statistical procedures. Ann Clin Lab Sci 1982; 12:134–42.Google Scholar

  • 23.

    Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Brocco G, Guidi GC. Preanalytical variability in laboratory testing: influence of the blood drawing technique. Clin Chem Lab Med 2005; 43:319–25.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 24.

    Lippi G, Guidi GC. Effect of specimen collection on routine coagulation assays and D-dimer measurement. Clin Chem 2004; 50:2150–2.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Prof. Giuseppe Lippi, MD, Istituto di Chimica e Microscopia Clinica, Dipartimento di Scienze Morfologico-Biomediche, Università degli Studi di Verona, Ospedale Policlinico G.B. Rossi, Piazzale Scuro, 10, 37134 Verona, Italy Phone: +39-045-8074516, Fax: +39-045-8201889,


Received: 2006-02-22

Accepted: 2006-05-08

Published Online: 2006-07-31

Published in Print: 2006-08-01


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), Volume 44, Issue 8, Pages 1009–1014, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2006.172.

Export Citation

©2006 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Julien Delobel, Olivier Rubin, Michel Prudent, David Crettaz, Jean-Daniel Tissot, and Niels Lion
International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2010, Volume 11, Number 12, Page 4601
[2]
Gabriel Lima-Oliveira, Waldemar Volanski, Giuseppe Lippi, Geraldo Picheth, and Gian Cesare Guidi
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 2017, Volume 77, Number 3, Page 153
[3]
Esther Herpel, Sabrina Schmitt, and Michael Kiehntopf
Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz, 2016, Volume 59, Number 3, Page 325
[4]
Andrew M. Penn, Linghong Lu, Andrew G. Chambers, Robert F. Balshaw, Jaclyn L. Morrison, Kristine Votova, Eileen Wood, Derek S. Smith, Maria Lesperance, Gregory J. del Zoppo, Christoph H. Borchers, and A.K. Ryan
Genome, 2015, Volume 58, Number 12, Page 569
[5]
Marit Sverresdotter Sylte, Tore Wentzel-Larsen, and Bjørn J. Bolann
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2013, Volume 415, Page 196
[6]
Jennifer Herring and Maureen McMichael
Topics in Companion Animal Medicine, 2012, Volume 27, Number 2, Page 73
[7]
Raffick A.R. Bowen, Glen L. Hortin, Gyorgy Csako, Oscar H. Otañez, and Alan T. Remaley
Clinical Biochemistry, 2010, Volume 43, Number 1-2, Page 4
[8]
Masanori Seimiya, Toshihiko Yoshida, Yuji Sawabe, Kazuyuki Sogawa, Hiroshi Umemura, Kazuyuki Matsushita, and Fumio Nomura
American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 2010, Volume 56, Number 4, Page 686

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in