The effect of disinfecting procedure on the glucose concentration using a personal glucose meter

      Highlights

      • Disinfection cause lowering of the measurement.
      • After disinfection, the best option is to wait 30 s before measurement.
      • Thinner lancet after disinfection cause greater lowering of the results.

      Abstract

      Background

      Personal glucose meters, primarily designed for self-control of glucose concentration in patients with diabetes, are frequently used in clinical practice as point-of-care equipment. The procedure of washing hands with water and soap before testing, as recommended by the manufacturer of personal glucose meters, in hospital wards is often difficult to fulfil and is replaced by disinfecting the place of blood sampling with isopropyl alcohol.

      Aim

      The purpose of the research was to evaluate the effect of different disinfecting procedures on glycemia measurement in capillary blood using personal glucose meters.

      Materials and methods

      Four measurements of glycemia were taken in each of 50-volunteer group using Accu-Check Performa (Roche, Swiss) glucose meter using different procedures: washing hands with soap and drying them (1), disinfection with isopropyl alcohol and waiting for the disinfectant to evaporate (2) and the immediate puncture after disinfection. In the latter case two kind of single-use lancets were use – typical for adult (3) and smaller preferred by diabetics or children (4).

      Results

      Paired T-student test showed no statistically significant difference between measurements 1st and 2nd 95% CI (−4.282 to 0.322), p = 0.09. However, the comparison between 1st/3rd and 1st/4th showed statistically significant difference, 95% CI (−4.964 to −0.796), p = 0,0077 (p < 0,01) and 95% CI (−7.842 to −2.917), p = 0.00006 (p < 0.001).

      Conclusions

      The procedure of disinfection when fluid completely evaporates has no effect on glucose measurements. Sampling the wet finger influences results of glucose measurement but observed changes were clinically irrelevant.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      Subscribe to Primary Care Diabetes
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kapusta M.
        • Słowińska-Solnica K.
        • Skupień J.
        • Małecki M.T.
        • Solnica B.
        Ocena analityczna glukometru Contour ® Plus Analytical evaluation of the Contour® Plus glucose meter.
        Diabetol Klin. 2014; 3 (Polish): 62-68
        • Freckmann G.
        • Schmid C.
        • Baumstark A.
        • Rutschmann M.
        • Haug C.
        • Heinemann L.
        Analytical performance requirements for systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose with focus on system accuracy: relevant differences among ISO 15197:2003, ISO 15197:2013, and current FDA recommendations.
        J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2015; 9: 885-894https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296815580160
        • CLSI
        Point-of-Care Blood Glucose Testing in Acute and Chronic Care Facilities; Approved Guideline—Third Edition. CLSI Document POCT12-A3.
        (Accessed 9 July 2020) Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA2013
        • Klonoff D.C.
        • Umpierrez G.E.
        • Rice M.J.
        A milestone in point of care capillary blood glucose monitoring of critically ill hospitalized patients.
        J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2018; 12: 1095-1100https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818801607
        • Infection prevention and control
        WHO.
        (Accessed 9 July 2020)
        • Fernandes S.C.
        • Baillargeon K.R.
        • MacE C.R.
        Reduction of blood volume required to perform paper-based hematocrit assays guided by device design.
        Anal. Methods. 2019; 11: 2057-2063https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ay00010k
        • Yared Z.
        • Aljaberi K.
        • Renouf N.
        • Yale J.F.
        The effect of blood sample volume on 11 glucose monitoring systems.
        Diabetes Care. 2005; 28: 1836-1837https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.28.7.1836
        • Grady M.
        • Pineau M.
        • Pynes M.K.
        • Katz L.B.
        • Ginsberg B.
        A clinical evaluation of routine blood sampling practices in patients with diabetes: impact on fingerstick blood volume and pain.
        J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2014; 8: 691-698https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296814533172
        • Harvey D.R.
        • Cooper L.V.
        • Fancourt R.F.
        • Levene M.
        • Schoberg T.
        The use of dextrostix and dextrostix reflectance meters in the diagnosis of neonatal hypoglycemia.
        J. Perinat. Med. 1976; 4: 106-110https://doi.org/10.1515/jpme.1976.4.2.106
        • Dunning P.
        • Rantzau C.
        • Ward G.
        Effect of alcohol swabbing on capillary blood glucose measurements.
        Pract. Diabetes Int. 1994; 11: 251-254https://doi.org/10.1002/pdi.1960110610
        • Mahoney J.J.
        • Ellison J.M.
        • Glaeser D.
        • Price D.
        The effect of an instant hand sanitizer on blood glucose monitoring results.
        J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2011; 5: 1444-1448https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681100500616
      1. Foos J. The Effect of Alcohol Prep Pads and Blood Drop Number On Capillary Blood Glucose Values. Honors Theses and Capstones. Published online January 1, 2017. (Accessed 9 July 2020). https://scholars.unh.edu/honors/335.

        • Cunningham D.D.
        • Henning T.P.
        • Shain E.B.
        • Young D.F.
        • Jurgen Hannig J.
        • Barua E.
        • Lee R.C.
        Blood extraction from lancet wounds using vacuum combined with skin stretching.
        J. Appl. Physiol. 2002; 92: 1089-1096https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00798.2001
        • Jarus-Dziedzic K.
        • Zurawska G.
        • Banyn K.
        • Morozowska J.
        The impact of needle diameter and penetration depth of safety lancets on blood volume and pain perception in 300 volunteers: a randomized controlled trial.
        J. Med. Lab. Diagn. 2019; 10: 1-12https://doi.org/10.5897/jmld2018.0146