Martina Becker1, Andreas Moritz, Urs Giger. 1. Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Clinical Pathology, and Clinical Pathophysiology, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Germany. martina.becker@vetmed.uni-giessen.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A CBC is an integral part of the assessment of health and disease in companion animals. While in the past newer technologies for CBC analysis were limited to large clinical pathology laboratories, several smaller and affordable automated hematology analyzers have been developed for in-clinic use. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare CBC results generated by 7 in-clinic laser- and impedance-based hematology instruments and 2 commercial laboratory analyzers. METHODS: Over a 3-month period, fresh EDTA-anticoagulated blood samples from healthy and diseased dogs (n=260) and cats (n=110) were analyzed on the LaserCyte, ForCyte, MS45, Heska CBC, Scil Vet ABC, VetScan HMT, QBC Vet Autoread, CELL-DYN 3500, and ADVIA 120 analyzers. Results were compared by regression correlation (linear, Deming, Passing-Bablok) and Bland-Altman bias plots using the ADVIA as the criterion standard for all analytes except HCT, which was compared with manual PCV. Precision, linearity, and carryover also were evaluated. RESULTS: For most analytes, the in-clinic analyzers and the CELL-DYN performed similarly and correlated well with the ADVIA. The biases ranged from -0.6 to 2.4 x 10(9)/L for WBC count, 0 to 0.9 x 10(12)/L for RBC count, -1.5 to 0.7 g/dL for hemoglobin concentration, -4.3 to 8.3 fL for MCV, and -69.3 to 77.2 x 10(9)/L for platelet count. Compared with PCV, the HCT on most analyzers had a bias from 0.1% to 7.2%. Canine reticulocyte counts on the LaserCyte and ForCyte correlated but had a negative bias compared with those on the ADVIA. Precision, linearity, and carryover results were excellent for most analyzers. CONCLUSIONS: Total WBC and RBC counts were acceptable on all in-clinic hematology instruments studied, with limitations for some RBC parameters and platelet counts. Together with evaluation of a blood film, these in-clinic instruments can provide useful information on canine and feline patients in veterinary practices.
BACKGROUND: A CBC is an integral part of the assessment of health and disease in companion animals. While in the past newer technologies for CBC analysis were limited to large clinical pathology laboratories, several smaller and affordable automated hematology analyzers have been developed for in-clinic use. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare CBC results generated by 7 in-clinic laser- and impedance-based hematology instruments and 2 commercial laboratory analyzers. METHODS: Over a 3-month period, fresh EDTA-anticoagulated blood samples from healthy and diseased dogs (n=260) and cats (n=110) were analyzed on the LaserCyte, ForCyte, MS45, Heska CBC, Scil Vet ABC, VetScan HMT, QBC Vet Autoread, CELL-DYN 3500, and ADVIA 120 analyzers. Results were compared by regression correlation (linear, Deming, Passing-Bablok) and Bland-Altman bias plots using the ADVIA as the criterion standard for all analytes except HCT, which was compared with manual PCV. Precision, linearity, and carryover also were evaluated. RESULTS: For most analytes, the in-clinic analyzers and the CELL-DYN performed similarly and correlated well with the ADVIA. The biases ranged from -0.6 to 2.4 x 10(9)/L for WBC count, 0 to 0.9 x 10(12)/L for RBC count, -1.5 to 0.7 g/dL for hemoglobin concentration, -4.3 to 8.3 fL for MCV, and -69.3 to 77.2 x 10(9)/L for platelet count. Compared with PCV, the HCT on most analyzers had a bias from 0.1% to 7.2%. Canine reticulocyte counts on the LaserCyte and ForCyte correlated but had a negative bias compared with those on the ADVIA. Precision, linearity, and carryover results were excellent for most analyzers. CONCLUSIONS: Total WBC and RBC counts were acceptable on all in-clinic hematology instruments studied, with limitations for some RBC parameters and platelet counts. Together with evaluation of a blood film, these in-clinic instruments can provide useful information on canine and feline patients in veterinary practices.
Authors: Kostas Papasouliotis; Simon Cue; Elsa Crawford; Mark Pinches; Michel Dumont; Ken Burley Journal: Vet Clin Pathol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 1.180
Authors: Kostas Papasouliotis; Simon Cue; Mary Graham; Andrew H. Sparkes; Timothy Gruffydd-Jones Journal: Vet Clin Pathol Date: 1999 Impact factor: 1.180
Authors: Karyn E O'Connell; Amy M Mikkola; Aaron M Stepanek; Andyna Vernet; Christopher D Hall; Chia C Sun; Eda Yildirim; John F Staropoli; Jeannie T Lee; Diane E Brown Journal: Comp Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 0.982
Authors: Zahra A Habibabady; Selin Sendil; Felix Ellett; Franziska Pollok; Gabriela F Elias; Beth M French; Wenji Sun; Gheorghe Braileanu; Lars Burdorf; Daniel Irimia; Richard N Pierson; Agnes M Azimzadeh Journal: Xenotransplantation Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 3.907
Authors: Marcella Lemos Brettas Carneiro; Raphael C A Peixoto; Graziela A Joanitti; Ricardo G S Oliveira; Luis A M Telles; Ana L Miranda-Vilela; Anamélia L Bocca; Leonora M S Vianna; Izabel C R da Silva; Aparecido R de Souza; Zulmira G M Lacava; Sônia N Báo Journal: J Nanobiotechnology Date: 2013-02-16 Impact factor: 10.435
Authors: Labrini Vasileiou Athanasiou; Zoe Polizopoulou; Maria Rafaela Kalafati; George Ntararas; Vasileios Kontos Journal: Vet Res Forum Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 1.054
Authors: Christof Steyrer; Friederike Pohlin; Leith C R Meyer; Peter Buss; Emma H Hooijberg Journal: Vet Clin Pathol Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 1.333