Use of Mindray MC-80 digital morphology analyzer's estimated platelet counts as adjunct to automated hematology analyzer


Creative Commons License

ÜSTÜNDAĞ Y., HUYSAL K., GÜLER KAZANCI E., Yıldırım F., Yeşil M. R.

Acta Haematologica Polonica, cilt.54, sa.3, ss.169-175, 2023 (Scopus)

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 54 Sayı: 3
  • Basım Tarihi: 2023
  • Doi Numarası: 10.5603/ahp.a2023.0025
  • Dergi Adı: Acta Haematologica Polonica
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Scopus, BIOSIS, Central & Eastern European Academic Source (CEEAS), EMBASE
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.169-175
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: method comparison, platelet estimation, digital morphology analyzer, thrombocytopenia, auto analyzer
  • Açık Arşiv Koleksiyonu: AVESİS Açık Erişim Koleksiyonu
  • Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Introduction: Automated hematology analyzer platelet counts can be performed using either the impedance (PLT-I) method or the fluorescent nucleic acid staining (PLT-O) method. Estimated platelet counts (PLT-E) can be calculated using a digital morphology analyzer by evaluating the peripheral blood smear. Our objective was to compare the platelet values detected on a Mindray BC-6200 device to the PLT-E count on a Mindray MC-80 digital morphology analyzer. Material and methods: Complete blood cell count findings between 1 September and 11 October, 2022 were obtained from the data storage units of the devices. We selected two groups of blood: a first group with thrombocytopenia (n = 49) and a second group that gave an aggregation and/or platelet clumping flag (n = 32). The results of 190 consecutive patients with normal platelet counts, and no aggregation flag, were evaluated as a control group. Pearson's correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, and paired t-tests were calculated. Results: The plot of the difference between PLT-I and PLT-O counts showed that the mean difference was -43.6 (95%: -17.2 to -69.9); when we compared PLT-O to PLT-E, bias was improved to -6.1 (95%: -18.26 to 6.1) in samples with aggregation and/or clumping flags (Bland-Altman plots). In samples with thrombocytopenia without aggregation and/or clumping, on the Bland-Altman plot, the differences in means were all close to zero, and there were no definite biases. Conclusions: Examining blood samples using the Mindray MC-80 digital morphology analyzer system on samples that show platelet clumps has the potential to improve PLT-I results in day-to-day laboratory routine.