A comparative study of blood viscometers of 3 different types

Author:

Oh Ju Seok1,Prabhakaran Prem1,Seo Dong Kil2,Kim Do Yeon3,Lee Woonhyoung4,Ahn Kyung Hyun5

Affiliation:

1. Department of Advanced Materials, Hannam University, Yuseonggu, Daejeon, Korea

2. Youngjin DNT, Hwaseong, Gyeonggido, Korea

3. Department of Neurology and Cerebrovascular Center, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Gyeonggido, Korea

4. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea

5. School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Institute of Chemical Processes, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

Abstract

 The greater the viscosity of the blood, the more difficult its flow becomes, leading to an increased incidence of diseases caused by blood circulation disorders. These diseases are commonly associated with the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems. High blood viscosity is a primary cause of circulatory system diseases. Studies have shown that accurately measuring blood viscosity and applying this data in clinical trials can help prevent circulatory system diseases. Viscosity data can vary depending on the measurement methods used, even when these methods are based on hydrodynamic principles. Despite using approved blood viscometers, the results often differ depending on the type of viscometer used, potentially causing confusion within the medical field. Informing the medical community about these differences and the level of error associated with each measurement method can help reduce this confusion. To our knowledge, the degree of difference in viscosity measurement results due to different measurement methods and the reasons for these differences have not yet been thoroughly explored. In this study, we selected three blood viscosity measurement methods registered with the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of Korea to analyze the same canine blood. The viscosity measurements were carried out using each device and compared. The parallel plate and scanning capillary methods yielded similar viscosity values, while the cone plate method showed lower viscosity values. The viscosity of blood, as measured by the three viscometers, differed, indicating that more experimental data must be accumulated to evaluate the cause of these differences. In this paper, we identified several causes of inconsistency and suggested measures to avoid this confusion. However, confirming that the test results show systematic differences is expected to assist clinicians who diagnose and prescribe treatments based on blood viscosity results. The findings of this comparative study are anticipated to serve as a starting point for establishing guidelines or standards for blood viscosity measurement methods.

Publisher

IOS Press

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3