W Brown1, M Keeney, B D Hedley. 1. Special Hematology, London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the advancements in instrumentation within hematology laboratories, there is still a need for review of a peripheral blood film (PBF). For a thorough PBF evaluation, it is critical that a well spread and stained film is available. METHODS: In this study, we evaluated an automatic slide maker/stainer (DxH-SMS, Beckman Coulter) compared with manually prepared blood films on 124 normal and abnormal samples. The primary goal of the study was to determine whether or not the DxH-SMS was able to consistently and reproducibly prepare and stain blood films of exemplary quality, without carryover between specimens. Additionally, repeatability of white blood cell distribution, comparability of morphology to reference methodologies, and grading of acceptance criteria outlined in the CLSI document H20-A2 were assessed. RESULTS: Carryover was not an issue and repeatability was within expected limits. There was excellent agreement of the 5-part differential between the automated blood films made by the DxH-SMS compared with the manually prepared reference blood film. There was no difference in identification and enumeration of blasts, variant lymphocytes, or nucleated red blood cells (P < 0.05). Red cell morphology showed excellent agreement. CONCLUSION: Blood films prepared by the DxH-SMS are of excellent quality, reproducible, and compare well with manually prepared slides. Introduction to our laboratory has improved and standardized slide quality.
INTRODUCTION: Despite the advancements in instrumentation within hematology laboratories, there is still a need for review of a peripheral blood film (PBF). For a thorough PBF evaluation, it is critical that a well spread and stained film is available. METHODS: In this study, we evaluated an automatic slide maker/stainer (DxH-SMS, Beckman Coulter) compared with manually prepared blood films on 124 normal and abnormal samples. The primary goal of the study was to determine whether or not the DxH-SMS was able to consistently and reproducibly prepare and stain blood films of exemplary quality, without carryover between specimens. Additionally, repeatability of white blood cell distribution, comparability of morphology to reference methodologies, and grading of acceptance criteria outlined in the CLSI document H20-A2 were assessed. RESULTS: Carryover was not an issue and repeatability was within expected limits. There was excellent agreement of the 5-part differential between the automated blood films made by the DxH-SMS compared with the manually prepared reference blood film. There was no difference in identification and enumeration of blasts, variant lymphocytes, or nucleated red blood cells (P < 0.05). Red cell morphology showed excellent agreement. CONCLUSION: Blood films prepared by the DxH-SMS are of excellent quality, reproducible, and compare well with manually prepared slides. Introduction to our laboratory has improved and standardized slide quality.