Practical Laboratory Medicine 36 (2023) e00325

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Practical Laboratory Medicine

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/plabm

Capillary blood stability and analytical accuracy of 12 analytes

stored in Microtainers®
Elizabeth Fontaine, Cristian Saez *
CoreMedica Laboratories, Inc., Lee’s Summit, Missouri, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine feasibility of collecting capillary blood by
Capillary blood traditional fingerstick and next day analysis after transport in Microtainers® at ambient tem­
Health awareness perature with no plasma separation. This study is pursuing an acceptable alternative to veni­
Microtube
puncture for measuring 12 analytes important for health risk assessment.
Microtainer®
Design: and Methods: Performance standards of a 12-assay chemistry panel were assessed using a
set of paralleled serum and capillary microsamples. The panel included Hemoglobin A1c
(HbA1c), Total Cholesterol, Triglycerides, HDL-C, Creatinine, Urea Nitrogen (BUN), Uric Acid,
alkaline phosphatase (ALP), ALT (GPT), AST (GOT), gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT), and total
protein. Correlation studies were performed using 31 simultaneous venous and capillary blood
collections. Analytical bias, correlation, and medical decision points were calculated to determine
equivalency of sample type and the impact of transport conditions. Clinical sensitivity, specificity,
and predictive values were evaluated at calculated medical decision points for their usability in
health screening initiatives.
Results: Laboratory test results using capillary blood samples stored in Microtainers® under
conditions of delayed centrifugation, and mail transport at ambient temperature, showed an
acceptable agreement with results obtained using their paired serum samples analyzed using
standard methods, except AST.
Conclusions: Capillary blood samples can be self-collected at remote locations using Microtainers®
and transported at ambient temperature for 24 h for successful performance of several medical
tests important in large-scale health screenings programs.

1. Introduction

While most diseases remain silent during their subclinical phase, the biochemistry of human blood is typically altered providing
early signals of an evolving pathology. Changes are usually detected by common laboratory tests using blood specimens obtained by a
medical technician [1]. However, this practice represents a logistic barrier for disease screening purposes. It requires travel to a patient
service center, or healthcare workers must travel to multiple locations to collect and transport blood to a central laboratory for
analysis. This approach is becoming increasingly unnecessary due to point-of-care alternatives that require small volumes of capillary
blood, but their use remains limited by higher costs and availability of new tests [2]. Clinical analysis of a small amount of blood is now
also possible in modern laboratory instruments. For example, a single drop of blood can be used to obtain a complete blood cell count,

* Corresponding author. CoreMedica Laboratories, Inc., 200 NE Missouri Road, Lee’s Summit, MO, 64086, USA.
E-mail address: csaez@prevential.health (C. Saez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2023.e00325
Received 21 March 2023; Received in revised form 8 June 2023; Accepted 3 July 2023
Available online 5 July 2023
2352-5517/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
E. Fontaine and C. Saez Practical Laboratory Medicine 36 (2023) e00325

or Hemoglobin A1c [3,4]. Microtubes have also been used to collect and transport blood samples obtained by a finger skin puncture.
Microtubes can also be used while attached to novel vacuum-powered devices such as those manufactured by Tasso, and YourBio­
Health allowing faster and easier capillary microsample collection [5–7]. Microsamples have been traditionally collected using a dried
blood spot modality due to its greater stability but limited by hemoglobin interference in photometric analyzers. Therefore, whole
blood microsampling has been recently seen as an alternative despite preanalytical requirements on centrifugation and refrigerated
transport to the laboratory. Since self-collected “home-based” blood samples can be neither centrifuged nor a cold chain maintained, it
becomes important to determine the stability of selected analytes without centrifugation and transport at higher temperature con­
ditions. Previous studies of capillary blood microsamples have shown good agreement between analyte concentration in serum and
capillary blood processed the same day [8]. However, studies showing whether unprocessed samples and kept at ambient temperature
are suitable for delayed analysis are not available. This study is aimed at the feasibility of performing select clinical laboratory tests on
blood microsamples collected and transported in mint top Microtainers® under field conditions.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Clinical specimens

Paired venous and capillary blood samples from 31 apparently healthy adult donors (14 females, 17 males) were collected for
comparison studies. Venous samples were collected according to standard phlebotomy procedures using serum separator and EDTA
vacutainer® tubes (BD # 367986, 367835). Serum samples were centrifuged for 15 min at 2,000×g prior to transportation under
refrigerated conditions using a styrofoam container with cold packs according to standard pre-analytic good laboratory practices. All
venous samples were de-capped and loaded in the analyzer upon arrival to the laboratory. Capillary blood was obtained by fingerstick
using a disposable contact-activated lancet (BD # 366594), and then collected into a lithium heparin (mint top) Microtainer® (BD #
365985). Immediately after the venous draw was performed, the phlebotomist supervised each donor through the microtainer self-
collection process. The skin puncture method has been described elsewhere [8]. Microsamples (ca. 0.3 mL each) were mixed by
inverting the sample 10 times to prevent clotting and transported uncentrifuged and without refrigeration. All specimens were shipped
by express mail using a UN3373 label according to federal and international regulations for the transport of a biological substance
category B. Before analysis, each microsample was mixed once again and a 0.01-mL aliquot was retrieved for Hemoglobin A1c testing.
The microsamples were then centrifuged at 3,000×g for 5 min, the plasma transferred into Hitachi sample cups (Roche #
10394246001) using disposable narrow stem transfer pipettes and analyzed within 1 h to avoid variability due to evaporation. Most
blood specimens were collected during summer in four small separate groups, shipped from different locations, and monitored for heat
exposure during transit using USB TE-02 PRO (Aprvtio) temperature data recorders. Drop boxes located on sidewalks and shipping
over weekend days were avoided. The entire study was conducted using anonymized samples from selected participants at health
screening events. Informed consent for the study was obtained and approved by the ethics committee at CoreMedica Laboratories in
accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki [9].

2.2. Analytical instrument

All analyses were performed on a Roche c502 COBAS 8000 modular platform with manufacturer’s reagents and protocols [10].
Sample interference measurements were obtained for hemoglobin (H-index) to assess hemolysis in each sample. Analytes routinely
analyzed in our laboratory were included in the study. Internal quality control samples were evaluated every 4 h for all analytes and
were monitored by external quality assurance programs.

2.3. Method comparison studies

Two approaches were used to study comparability between venous samples, considered the “gold standard”, and capillary blood
samples, collected and transported in BD microtubes. Deming regression was used to determine the relationship of the medical de­
cision point (MDP) for each analyte in both methods. Regression analyses were performed using the EP evaluator software (Data
Innovations, Colchester, VT). The agreement of microtube results with regular venous samples was evaluated using Bland-Altman
difference graphs between individual pair values (venous, capillary) on the vertical axis against to the average values of the indi­
vidual pair values using a limit of agreement set at mean ± 1.96 times the standard deviation (SD) of the differences [11]. Difference
plots were analyzed using Microsoft Excel.

2.4. Evaluation of total error and microsample method effectiveness

Paralleled clinical tests in the cohort of 31 donors were counted for the number of microsamples outside the published total
allowable error for venous samples [12]. Microsamples were also evaluated for effectiveness based on clinical sensitivity, specificity,
and predictive value calculations from paralleled assay results. Assay results were considered either positive or negative using a cut-off
value representing the medical decision point in each case. Calculations were made comparing venous and capillary blood results
side-by-side and counting the number of true positives (a), false positives (b), false negatives (c), and true negatives (d) to determine
sensitivity (a/a+c), specificity (d/b + d), positive predictive value (a/a+b), and Negative predictive value (d/c + d) [13]. These four
indices are calculated using venous samples as the reference to only evaluate the ability of microsamples to achieve equivalent health

2
E. Fontaine and C. Saez Practical Laboratory Medicine 36 (2023) e00325

screening outcomes.

3. Results

3.1. Temperature range of clinical specimens

The remote collection of specimens in the health and wellness industry creates many opportunities for suboptimal specimen quality
and mainly due to higher transit temperature. The temperature of samples after collection and during transport and its effect on
hemolysis are shown in Table 1. Refrigerated venous samples used as reference laboratory values showed temperature fluctuations
during pre-analytic processing and transport, with a mean value of 10 ± 3 ◦ C consistent with standard protocols for shipping
refrigerated specimens. Capillary blood microsamples showed a mean temperature between 20 and 25 ◦ C and variability not exceeding
30 ◦ C. Hemolytic interference in most COBAS assays is expected at hemoglobin index values greater than 200 mg/dL, except AST with
a hemoglobin index limit at 60 mg/dL.

3.2. Comparability of results

Fig. 1 (Panels A through L) depicts comparison studies for each assay performed with conventional venous and paralleled capillary
samples. Supporting statistics are shown in Table 2. An observed correlation over 97% demonstrates a good association between
analyte measurements made in both alternative sample matrices. Using this criterion, both methods are statistically identical by
sharing a slope of 1, and an intercept of 0 within 95% of their confidence interval for each analyte, despite lower correlation observed
for uric acid and total protein.
Correlations over 90% allowed to the comparison of medical decision points (MDP) for each analyte. If both methods are identical,
the 95% confidence interval for each calculated microsample MDP includes the corresponding MDP value established for venous
samples. Table 3 shows microsamples as identical to conventional venous assays, except for HDL-C, uric acid, and liver enzymes. Total
protein MDP comparison could not be calculated due to lower correlation under 90%.
The capillary microsample data shows an assay bias of 0.7–11%, except for AST with a higher positive bias of 40%, despite the good
linear relationship with its venous counterpart. Fig. 2 (Panels A through L) shows a significant agreement of analytical results between
venous (“gold standard”) and blood microsamples when evaluated using Bland-Altman difference plots. Data analyses reveled no
systematic biases and outliers in each case. These results indicate that differences are not clinically important, except for AST where
most data points fall outside the limits of agreement (Fig. 2, Panel J).

3.3. Error count, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values

The total number of microsamples for each assay falling outside the acceptable error is shown in Table 4. The data shows a small
error in each assay, except for AST where 26 out 31 microsamples reveal poor accuracy. The impact of error in microsample assay
effectiveness, using reference MDP venous values (Table 3), is represented by shifts in clinical sensitivity, specificity, and predictive
values shown in Table 4. All four indices indicate good equivalency between venous samples and capillary microsamples. High
negative predictive values, except for triglycerides, provides evidence to consider both sampling collection methods as significantly
equivalent.

4. Discussion

Clinical laboratory data from apparently healthy individuals have been shown to be helpful to detect silent medical conditions
during pre-clinical stages [14]. Employers have used this strategy for many years to control health insurance costs and maintain
productivity by reducing absenteeism [15]. Likewise, consumers use the same strategy to monitor therapeutic treatment or wellness
goals [16]. These initiatives often require remote collection of a blood sample performed under limited supervision creating oppor­
tunities for suboptimal quality of laboratory services since samples must travel uncentrifuged for many hours at ambient temperature.
Our laboratory has successfully used Microtainers® to reproduce microtube studies from different research groups, but their usability
for routine chemistry analytes under remote blood collection conditions is unknown [4,8,17,18]. BD Microtainer® products are
approved for in vitro diagnostic use and showed great acceptability among donors who collected an average of 0.4 mL of capillary
blood (10–15 drops) in less than 5 min. However, lack of standardization prevents consumers from using microtubes without labo­
ratory validation of preanalytical conditions. Our study included 12 routine analytes, but excluded electrolytes, bicarbonate, bilirubin,
and albumin. Glucose was incompatible with analysis in uncentrifuged microsamples but replaced for Hemoglobin A1c performed in

Table 1
Specimen pre-analytic transit temperature and effect on hemolysis.
Blood Sample Temperature Conditions Mean Range (oC) Mean Hemoglobin
Temperature (oC) Index (mg/dL)

Venous Refrigerated 12.9 11.3–17.1 10

Capillary Ambient 24.8 19.6–28.5 70

3
E. Fontaine and C. Saez Practical Laboratory Medicine 36 (2023) e00325

Fig. 1. Comparison of venous with capillary microsamples analyzed by Deming regression. Scatter plots bounds indicate 95% confidence inter­
val limits.

4
E. Fontaine and C. Saez Practical Laboratory Medicine 36 (2023) e00325

Table 2
Summary of regression statistics.
a a
Analyte (Units) Slope (95% CI) Intercept (95% CI) Correlation Bias (%)

HbA1c (%) 0.977 (0.894 – 1.060) -0.010 (-0.469 – 0.449) 0.9750 - 0.136 (-2.47 %)
Cholesterol (mg/dL) 0.997 (0.907 – 1.047) 9.8 (-4.0 – 23.6) 0.9822 5.3 (2.7 %)
Triglycerides (mg/dL) 0.963 (0.908 – 1.019) 4.4 (-5.4 – 14.1) 0.9885 - 1.1 (- 0.7 %)
HDL-C (mg/dL) 0.972 (0.897 – 1.046) 4.1 (-0.1 – 8.4) 0.9796 2.6 (4.7 %)
Creatinine (mg/dL) 0.955 (0.889 – 1.021) - 0.015 (-0.079 – 0.049) 0.9836 - 0.057 (-6.1 %)
Urea Nitrogen (mg/dL) 1.048 (0.987 – 1.109) 0.2 (-0.7 – 1.1) 0.9884 0.9 (6.0 %)
Uric Acid (mg/dL) 0.932 (0.794 – 1.071) - 0.20 (-0.95 – 0.55) 0.9240 - 0.55 (-10.5 %)
ALP (mg/dL) 0.981 (0.904 – 1.058) - 1.7 (-8.2 – 4.7) 0.9795 - 3.3 (- 4.1%)
ALT (IU/L) 1.080 (1.040 – 1.120) 0.7 (-0.6 – 1.9) 0.9953 2.7 (10.6 %)
AST (mg/dL) 1.087 (0.982 – 1.193) 7.5 (4.4 – 10.7) 0.9674 9.6 (40.0 %)
GGT (mg/dL) 1.039 (0.974 – 1.104) 1.6 (0.0 – 3.3) 0.9865 2.5 (11.0 %)
Protein, Total (g/dL) 1.228 (0.925 – 1.530) - 1.29 (-3.46 – 0.88) 0.7813 0.35 (4.8 %)
a
95% Confidence intervals are shown between parentheses.

Table 3
Medical decision point analysis.
a b
Analyte (Units) Venous MDP Microsample MDP 95% CI Limits

HbA1c (%) 6.5 6.4 6.3–6.4

Cholesterol, Total (mg/dL) 240 244 240–249
Triglycerides (mg/dL) 200 197 191–203
HDL-C (mg/dL) 50 52 52–54
Creatinine (mg/dL) 1.4 1.3 1.3–1.4
Urea Nitrogen (mg/dL) 24 25 24–26
Uric Acid (mg/dL) 8.0 7.3 6.9–7.7
ALP (IU/L) 115 111 108–114
ALT (GPT) (IU/L) 55 60 59–62
AST (GOT) (IU/L) 48 60 57–63
GGT (IU/L) 60 64 61–66
Protein, Total (g/dL) 6.3 N/A N/A
a
Calculated medical decision points for each analyte using microsamples.
b
Confidence interval for each analyte MDP in microsamples.

whole blood. All other assays were performed in capillary plasma, and variability was expected as capillary blood is a mixture venous
blood, arterial blood, and tissue fluid. Additionally, venous serum values have been reported to slightly differ from those obtained from
capillary serum [19]. As shown in Fig. 2, this study demonstrates interchangeability in most chemistry values obtained from capillary
plasma collected in lithium-heparin and equivalent to results obtained from microsamples collected in an alternative anticoagulant
[20]. Excluding AST, small differences observed are not important during health screenings where laboratory tests are only utilized to
identify a subset of the population who should have an additional evaluation for adequate medical diagnosis. We demonstrated
satisfactory results for most analytes despite mechanical stress, high temperature and long delays in centrifugation. There was no
hemolytic interference as opposed to previous reports using traditional venous samples [21]. Lack of agreement was observed for AST
due to its lower allowable level of hemoglobin index in uncentrifuged microsamples [22]. Total protein shows poor correlation due to
the short dynamic range of the study cohort, but microsample assay results have an excellent agreement against reference values in
each case.

5. Conclusions

This study provides a proof-of-concept about using Microtainers® for capillary blood collection and analysis under uncontrolled
preanalytical variables such as temperature and delayed centrifugation of samples transported over a 24 h timeline. This study may be
useful to define acceptable delay times and storage conditions for other laboratories when a short time between sample collection and
processing is not possible in large-scale health screening events or at-home blood sample collection.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Cristian Saez: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - original draft. Elizabeth Fontaine:
Investigation, Writing - review and editing.

5
E. Fontaine and C. Saez Practical Laboratory Medicine 36 (2023) e00325

Fig. 2. Bland-Altman difference Plot of analytes in venous serum and plasma microsamples. Dashed lines represent the 95% confidence interval of
the observed mean difference in each case.

6
E. Fontaine and C. Saez Practical Laboratory Medicine 36 (2023) e00325

Table 4
Clinical sensitivity, specificity, and microanalysis error.
a b
Analyte TAE (%) Failed Samples Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) PPV (%) NPV (%)

HbA1c 6 1 100 100 100 100

Cholesterol, Total 10 1 100 96 86 100
Triglycerides 20 3 78 100 100 92
HDL-C 15 2 100 85 90 100
Creatinine 15 1 100 100 100 100
Urea Nitrogen 9 3 100 100 100 100
Uric Acid 17 4 100 100 100 100
ALP 30 0 100 100 100 100
ALT (GPT) 20 3 100 97 67 100
AST (GOT) 20 26 100 97 50 100
GGT 20 4 100 100 100 100
Protein, Total 10 0 100 100 100 100
a
Total allowable error values were defined using published government guidelines.
b
PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors do not have any conflict to report. There are no commercial interests between the authors and BD Diagnostics.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to all study participants and laboratory team members at CoreMedica Laboratories. We also express
our special thanks to William T. Morgan, Professor Emeritus at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, for his technical assistance and
critical review of the manuscript.

References

[1] K. Baillargeon, C. Mace, Microsampling tools for collecting, processing, and storing blood at the point-of-care, Bioeng. Transl. Med. 8 (2023), e10476, https://
doi.org/10.1002/btm2.10476.
[2] C.E.S. Ferreira, et al., Point-of-care testing: general aspects, Clin. Lab. 64 (2018) 1–9, https://doi.org/10.7754/clin.lab.2017.170730.
[3] N. Bachar, et al., An artificial intelligence-assisted diagnostic platform for rapid near-patient hematology, Am. J. Hematol. 96 (2021) 1264–1274. https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajh.26295.
[4] J. Cross, S. Sharma, W.G. John, G. Rayman, Validation and feasibility of a postal system for remote monitoring of HbA1c, BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care 9
(2021). https://drc.bmj.com/content/9/2/e002527.long.
[5] T. Hendelman, et al., Self-collection of capillary blood using Tasso-SST devices for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody testing, PLoS One 16 (2021), e0255841.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255841.
[6] E. Wickremsinhe, et al., Standard venipuncture vs a capillary blood collection device for the prospective determination of abnormal liver chemistry, J. Appl.
Lab. Med. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfac127.
[7] E. Silliman, et al., Evaluation of at-home serum anti-Müllerian hormone testing: a head-to-head comparison study, Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 20 (2022) 131.
https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-022-01004-2.
[8] D.K. Falch, Clinical chemical analyses of serum obtained from capillary versus venous blood, using Microtainers® and Vacutainers, Scand. J. Clin. Lab. Invest.
41 (1981) 59–62. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00365518109092015.
[9] M.D.E. Goodyear, K. Krleza-Jeric, T. Lemmens, The declaration of Helsinki, BMJ 335 (2007) 624. https://www.bmj.com/content/335/7621/624.
[10] A. von Eckardstein, et al., Cobas 8000 modular analyzer series evaluated under routine-like conditions at 14 sites in Australia, Europe, and the United States,
Slas Technol. 18 (2013) 306–327. https://slas-technology.org/article/S2472-6303(22)01625-9/fulltext.
[11] D. Giavarina, Understanding Bland altman analysis, Biochem. Med. 25 (2015) 141–151. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4470095.
[12] R.H. Laessig, S.S. Ehrmeyer, J.E. Leinweber, Intralaboratory performance requirements necessary to pass proficiency testing: CAP-1990 vs CLIA-1967 (March
14, 1990) formats compared, Clin. Chem. 38 (1992) 895–903. https://academic.oup.com/clinchem/article-abstract/38/6/895/5649910?login=false.
[13] D.A. Grimes, K.F. Schulz, Uses and abuses of screening tests, Lancet 359 (2002) 881–884, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07948-5.
[14] J. Marshall, et al., Employee health benefit redesign at the academic health center, Acad. Med. 88 (2013) 328–334, https://doi.org/10.1097/
ACM.0b013e318281a71c.
[15] J.E. Riedel, W. Lynch, C. Baase, P. Hymel, K.W. Peterson, The effect of disease prevention and health promotion on workplace productivity: a literature review,
Am. J. Heal. Promot. Ajhp 15 (2001) 167–191, https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-15.3.167.
[16] F.H. Wians, Clinical laboratory tests: which, why and what do the results mean? Lab. Med. 40 (2009) 105–113, https://doi.org/10.4102/ajlm.v4i1.277.
[17] T.A. Blumenfeld, W.G. Hertelendy, S.H. Ford, Simultaneously obtained skin-puncture serum, skin-puncture plasma, and venous serum compared, and effects of
warming the skin before puncture, Clin. Chem. 23 (1977) 1705–1710. https://europepmc.org/article/med/890915.
[18] P. Greenland, N.L. Bowley, B. Meiklejohn, K.L. Doane, C.E. Sparks, Blood cholesterol concentration: fingerstick plasma vs venous serum sampling, Clin. Chem.
36 (1990) 628–630, https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/36.4.628.
[19] I.R. Kupke, B. Kather, S. Zeugner, On the composition of capillary and venous blood serum, Clin. Chim. Acta 112 (1981) 177–185, https://doi.org/10.1016/
0009-8981(81)90376-4.

7
E. Fontaine and C. Saez Practical Laboratory Medicine 36 (2023) e00325

[20] J. Marotto-Garcia, et al., Analysis of common biomarkers in capillary blood in routine clinical laboratory. Preanalytical and analytical comparison with venous
blood, Diagnosis, ahead of print (2023), https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2022-0126.
[21] S.F. Green, The cost of poor blood specimen quality and errors in preanalytical processes, Clin. Biochem. 46 (2013) 1175–1179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
clinbiochem.2013.06.001.
[22] N. Rousseau, R. Pige, R. Cohen, M. Pecquet, What is the acceptable hemolysis index for the measurements of plasma potassium, LDH and AST? Ann. Biol. Clin.
74 (2016) 323–328, https://doi.org/10.1684/abc.2016.1134.