The accu check plasma thing

[caffeine_demon]

Having just read that accu chek meters now give measurements from plasma rather than whole blood and that these are approx 11% higher than whole blood readings - does this mean that a "healthy" range for my BG is now around 4.4-7.7ish as opposed to 4-7?

 

[C*5_Dodger]

Having just read that accu chek meters now give measurements from plasma rather than whole blood and that these are approx 11% higher than whole blood readings - does this mean that a "healthy" range for my BG is now around 4.4-7.7ish as opposed to 4-7?

Dear caffeine_demon,

I wondered about this, so at my last check-up I asked the same question. My nurse said that blood samples analysed by labs have always been plasma and that levels they recommend are also plasma readings

Warmest Regards Dodger

 

[caffeine_demon]

merci bien!

 

[Liz!]

There's something on this somewhere here I posted about it - it is actualy 12.5% higher, I phoned the company. this makes a difference to me as I am a brittle diabetic and the readings I get need to be as accurate as possible.

I'm AMAZED that more fuss hasn't been made about this.

And what the hospital recommends is not relevant, what is relevant is how you understand the level you get on yur meter, and how you react to it.

The company are sending me a chart to be able to convert the blood plasma sugar reading to whole blood so i don't get confused.

 

[Robster65]

And what the hospital recommends is not relevant, what is relevant is how you understand the level you get on yur meter, and how you react to it.

i think that's the real key liz. Not all non-diabetics run at the same levels, so we need to be aware how we react and feel in different situations.🙂

Rob

 

[HelenM]

This is a chart I made and put on my blog some time ago. Sorry but the round numbers are in mg/dl as I use the latter.
You can also use the convertor on the lifescan site but you will have to convert the mmol to mg/dl first. The convertor also gives the clinical accuracy which shows how inaccurate your meter results may in fact be!
http://www.lifescan.com/diabetes/bloodglucose/convert/
All my readings were whole blood until recently and targets I was give were based on that fact .This explains why the level I've always been told for a hypo (65 mg/dl) was lower than the equivalent level given in the UK. (which was based on plasma even though many people used meters which gave results in whole blood!)

 

[Northerner]

I find this all terribly confusing. When I first read about the change some time ago I misread the quote 'Whether your meter uses a coding chip or test strip drum, the automatic coding feature means that the change is made conveniently though the actual test strip. The meter does not have to be replaced' as meaning that somehow the meter would display a result in line with what was shown before i.e. adjusted for the new way of measuring.

Obviously not! It does actually mean that figures displayed will be 11% higher than before, so a 4.3 actually would have appeared to be a hypo of 3.9 as I would have read it before. But if the hospital measures are based on plasma then the 3.9 I was getting before was actually in range, not hypo. That might also explain why I have rarely felt much in the way of symptoms if in the range of 3.5-3.9 in the past.

So, as Liz says, the problem is at the upper end when you are making corrections, as the 11% difference will represent a larger value.

Here's accu chek's page, with conversion table:

http://www.accu-chek.co.uk/gb/news/14april10.html

 

[Liz!]

But if the hospital measures are based on plasma then the 3.9 I was getting before was actually in range, not hypo. That might also explain why I have rarely felt much in the way of symptoms if in the range of 3.5-3.9 in the past.

I don't find that a good explanation, because we have always been told that under 4, measured by our OWN blood testing machines, is hypo.

It is not reasonable, and does not make sense, for them to be giving advice on hypos levels only according to their plasma readings... which in any case are not one level at a time, but an overall view of blood sugar taken over a period of time - when was the last time you had a single blood test taken at hospital? And if you have, they were using the same machines we have been.

Your blood testing machine was taking a blood test from whole blood, and from whole blood, below 4 is a hypo. It is only recently that the strips have tested for plasma. And since then, a reading above 4 MAY ALSO BE HYPO. As it is a reading taken from a smaller sample of blood. There is nothing to suggest that just because a plasma strip sayds over 4 that you are not hypo. that is the point of my complaint, you might not think you are, but you could be hypo as the reading will read higher, but is still the same as it has always been if you switched to another machine reading whole blood.

And you may not have had low blood sugar symptoms at 3 -4 , but loads of other people have...

And according to the representative of Accu-chek I spoke to last week, it's 12.5%, not 11.

 

[Northerner]

I don't find that a good explanation, because we have always been told that under 4, measured by our blood testing machines, is hypo. It is not reasonable of them to be giving advice on hypos levels only according to their plasma readings... which in any case are not one level at a time, but an overall view of blood sugar taken over a period of time - when was the last time you had a single blood test taken at hospital? And if you have, they were using the same machines we have been.

And you may not have had low blood sugar symptoms at 3 -4 , but loads of other people have...

I think the majority of meters have used plasma readings for some time, just Roche that are behind the times. So it may be that the hospitals advice is based on the safest general advice (as far as hypos are concerned) that would apply to all meters however they measure.

 

[Liz!]

I've been told that hypo is under 4 for 40 years...

It could be so, they havn't changed the lower figure because of that - BUT what about the other end? Surely that means that people are being allowed to go higher than they used to?

I'm all confused about this issue!

 

[Northerner]

I've been told that hypo is under 4 for 40 years...

It could be so, they havn't changed the lower figure because of that - BUT what about the other end? Surely that means that people are being allowed to go higher than they used to?

I'm all confused about this issue!

It's very confusing! I suspect that they feel the higher readings (should be!) not so high as to need corrections! 😱

 

[Robster65]

I suspect the tolerance on the readings at each extreme, which are not fantastic, would negate any differences anyway.

I use the figures as a guide and if I feel hypo at eg, 4.2, I'll eat a jelly baby just to be safe. If I'm down into the 1s and 2s, I'm not bothered how accurate it is ! 😱

But it would be nice if they got their act together and managed to produce a meter that is more accurate and tells us what we actually are in real time, with some degree of accuracy.

Rob