The Accuracy of Platelet Counting in Thrombocytopenic Blood Samples Distributed by the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme for General Haematology
ABSTRACT A knowledge of the limitations of automated platelet counting is essential for the effective care of thrombocytopenic patients and management of platelet stocks for transfusion. For this study, 29 external quality assessment specimen pools with platelet counts between 5 and 64 × 10(9)/L were distributed to more than 1,100 users of 23 different hematology analyzer models. The same specimen pools were analyzed by the international reference method (IRM) for platelet counting at 3 reference centers. The IRM values were on average lower than the all-methods median values returned by the automated analyzers. The majority (~67%) of the automated analyzer results overestimated the platelet count compared with the IRM, with significant differences in 16.5% of cases. Performance differed between analyzer models. The observed differences may depend in part on the nature of the survey material and analyzer technology, but the findings have implications for the interpretation of platelet counts at levels of clinical decision making.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Sysmex XN haematology instrument performs automatic reflex testing, depending on sample results. A nucleated red blood cell (NRBC) count is provided on all samples. The instrument has a smaller footprint (34%) than previous Sysmex XE analysers. An evaluation comparing all results to the Sysmex XE-2100 and manual microscopic differential and morphology (n=390) was performed followed by a workflow study of 1000 samples to compare speed of operation and number of blood films reviews required from both systems. The new features on the instrument are: (1) white cell and NRBC channel, all samples include the NRBC count; (2) white cell precursor channel: false positive flags for blasts, abnormal lymphocytes and atypical lymphocytes are reduced significantly without a statistical increase of false negatives; (3) low white cell count mode: suggested setting of <0.5×10(9)/l. An extended count is more precise and provides an accurate differential. Fluorescent platelet count is performed in a dedicated channel. If the red cell or platelet size histograms are abnormal or if the platelet count is low, then a fluorescent platelet count is automatically performed. Good correlation with the XE-2100 and manual differential was found and the improved results compared to the reference flow cytometric analysis for platelet counts, especially below 30×10(9)/l (XE-2100, R(2)=0.500; XN, R(2)=0.875). The XN showed reduced sample turnaround time of 10% and reduced number of blood films for examination, 49% less than the XE-2100 without loss of sensitivity with more precise and accurate results on low cell counts.Journal of clinical pathology 07/2012; 65(11):1024-30. DOI:10.1136/jclinpath-2012-200930 · 2.55 Impact Factor
- 01/2013: chapter 9; AABB., ISBN: 9781563958366
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Platelets perform many functions in hemostasis but also in other areas of physiology and pathology. Therefore, it is obvious that many different function tests have been developed, each one conceived and standardized for a special purpose. This review will summarize the different fields in which platelet function testing is currently in use; diagnostics of patients with bleeding disorders, monitoring patients' response to anti-platelet therapy, monitoring in transfusion medicine (blood donors, platelet concentrates, and after transfusion), and monitoring in perioperative medicine to predict bleeding tendency. The second part of the review outlines different methods for platelet function testing, spanning bleeding time, and platelet counting as well as determining platelet adhesion, platelet secretion, platelet aggregation, platelet morphology, platelet signal transduction, platelet procoagulant activity, platelet apoptosis, platelet proteomics, and molecular biology.Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy 04/2013; 40(2):73-86. DOI:10.1159/000350469 · 2.01 Impact Factor