RSS Feeds
To Butterfly or To Needle: The Specimen Testing Question
The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:
•Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references
•Type with double-spacing
•Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.
Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.
Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.
IN RESPONSE:
We thank Dr. Miller for his comment on our letter. As he pointed out, specimen quantity and quality are probably as important as venipuncture success rates and patient discomfort. On the basis of our study, we can address only specimen quantity. We noted failure of blood collection when a second venipuncture had to be performed, for whatever reason, to fill all blood tubes. If problems with specimen quantity had arisen because the butterfly device led to additional venipuncture attempts, we would have noticed an increased failure rate with the butterfly device. Because we observed a decreased failure rate, we can almost completely exclude the possibility that specimen quantity problems might be linked to the butterfly device.
Anecdotally, blood collection with the butterfly device has been linked to an increased rate of hemolysis compared with the conventional needle (1). No scientifically founded data on this topic have been provided to date. Our study was not designed to answer this particular question. Of note, only a fraction of laboratory values are measured inexactly in the presence of hemolysis. For most clinical questions, hemolysis at blood collection, although undesirable, does not significantly alter laboratory values or clinical decision making. Therefore, we believe that answering the hemolysis question is of clinical value but does not significantly impact the results of our study.
The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:
•Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references
•Type with double-spacing
•Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.
Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.
Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.
