BACKGROUND: An automated impedance-based in-house hematology analyzer, the PocH-100iV Diff, which provides a 3-part leukocyte differential count that includes eosinophils, recently has been introduced. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to validate results from the PocH-100iV Diff for dogs and cats and evaluate the impact of the anticoagulant used and sample storage conditions. METHODS: Blood samples collected in K(3) EDTA from 153 cats and 150 dogs were included in the comparison study. The reference analyzer was the ADVIA 2120 hematology analyzer, and manual differential leukocyte counts and PCV were the manual reference methods. RESULTS: Coefficients of variation were < 3% except for platelet counts and feline differential and eosinophil counts. Correlation between analyzers was good to excellent except for hemoglobin (HGB) concentration in dogs and RBC indices for both species. Biases were close to 0 except for MCHC and platelet counts. Correlation with manual counts was good for lymphocytes and OTHR cells (combined neutrophil and monocyte counts) and fair and poor for feline and canine eosinophil counts, respectively. Estimated sensitivity and specificity for detection of eosinophilia were, respectively, 50% and 98% for cats and 34% and 77% for dogs. A significant anticoagulant effect was seen for MCV in cats and for HCT, MCH, MCHC, and platelet, OTHR, and eosinophil counts in dogs. RBC and WBC counts, HGB concentration, and MCH were stable for 72 h. HCT, MCV, MCHC, and platelet counts were affected by sample storage (dogs > cats; 22°C > 4°C). CONCLUSIONS: The PocH-100iV Diff is a suitable in-house instrument. A strength is its specific, but moderately sensitive, detection of feline eosinophils.
BACKGROUND: An automated impedance-based in-house hematology analyzer, the PocH-100iV Diff, which provides a 3-part leukocyte differential count that includes eosinophils, recently has been introduced. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to validate results from the PocH-100iV Diff for dogs and cats and evaluate the impact of the anticoagulant used and sample storage conditions. METHODS: Blood samples collected in K(3) EDTA from 153 cats and 150 dogs were included in the comparison study. The reference analyzer was the ADVIA 2120 hematology analyzer, and manual differential leukocyte counts and PCV were the manual reference methods. RESULTS: Coefficients of variation were < 3% except for platelet counts and feline differential and eosinophil counts. Correlation between analyzers was good to excellent except for hemoglobin (HGB) concentration in dogs and RBC indices for both species. Biases were close to 0 except for MCHC and platelet counts. Correlation with manual counts was good for lymphocytes and OTHR cells (combined neutrophil and monocyte counts) and fair and poor for feline and canine eosinophil counts, respectively. Estimated sensitivity and specificity for detection of eosinophilia were, respectively, 50% and 98% for cats and 34% and 77% for dogs. A significant anticoagulant effect was seen for MCV in cats and for HCT, MCH, MCHC, and platelet, OTHR, and eosinophil counts in dogs. RBC and WBC counts, HGB concentration, and MCH were stable for 72 h. HCT, MCV, MCHC, and platelet counts were affected by sample storage (dogs > cats; 22°C > 4°C). CONCLUSIONS: The PocH-100iV Diff is a suitable in-house instrument. A strength is its specific, but moderately sensitive, detection of feline eosinophils.