Background: Remote patient monitoring can shift important data collection opportunities to low-cost settings. Here, we evaluate whether the quality of blood-samples taken by patients at home differs from samples taken from the same patients by clinical staff. We examine the effects of socio-demographic and patient reported outcomes (PRO) survey data on remote blood sampling compliance and quality. Methods: Samples were collected both in-clinic by study-staff and remotely by subjects at home. During cataloging the samples were graded for quality. We used chi-squared tests and logistic regressions to examine differences in quality and compliance between samples taken in-clinic versus samples taken by subjects at-home. Results: 64.6% of in-clinic samples and 69.7% of samples collected remotely at home received a Good (compared to Not Good) quality grade (chi2 = 4.91; p =.03). Regression analysis found remote samples had roughly 1.5 times higher odds of being Good quality compared to samples taken in-clinic (p <.001; 95% CI 1.18-2.03). Increased anxiety reduced odds of contributing a Good sample (p =.04; 95% CI.95-1.0). Response rates were significantly higher for in-clinic sampling (95.8% vs 89.8%; p <.001). Conclusion: Blood-samples taken by patients at home using a microsampling device yielded higher quality samples than those taken in-clinic.

中文翻译：

---

以患者为中心的远程干血采样的可行性：主要不良心脏事件的预测、风险和评估 (PRE-MACE) 研究。


背景：远程患者​​监护可以将重要的数据收集机会转移到低成本环境。在这里，我们评估患者在家采集的血液样本的质量是否与临床工作人员从同一患者采集的样本的质量不同。我们研究了社会人口统计和患者报告结果 (PRO) 调查数据对远程血液采样依从性和质量的影响。方法：研究人员在诊所收集样本，并由受试者在家远程收集样本。在编目过程中，对样品的质量进行了分级。我们使用卡方检验和逻辑回归来检查诊所采集的样本与受试者在家采集的样本之间的质量和依从性差异。结果：64.6% 的诊所样本和 69.7% 在家远程收集的样本获得良好（与“不良”相比）质量等级（chi2 = 4.91；p =.03）。回归分析发现，与在诊所采集的样本相比，远程样本的质量良好的几率大约高 1.5 倍（p <.001；95% CI 1.18-2.03）。焦虑增加会降低贡献良好样本的几率（p = 0.04；95% CI.95-1.0）。临床采样的响应率显着更高（95.8% vs 89.8%；p <.001）。结论：患者在家中使用微量采样装置采集的血液样本比在诊所采集的样本质量更高。