Sabrina Buoro1, Sara Apassiti Esposito2, MariaGrazia Alessio2, Alberto Crippa2, Cosimo Ottomano3, Giuseppe Lippi3. 1. Laboratory of Clinical Chemistry, Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy. sbuoro@hpg23.it. 2. Laboratory of Clinical Chemistry, Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy. 3. Laboratory of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, Academic Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the new body fluid module on Sysmex UF1000-i (UF1000i-BF) for analysis of white blood cell (WBC) and red blood cell (RBC) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). METHODS: WBC and RBC counting were compared between UF1000i-BF and Fuchs-Rosenthal counting chamber in 67 CSF samples. This study also included the evaluation of between-day precision, limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD), functional sensitivity (limit of quantitation, LoQ), carryover and linearity. Diagnostic agreement for differentiation between normal and increased WBC counts (≥5.0 × 10(6) /L) was also assessed. RESULTS: The agreement between UF1000i-BF and manual WBC counts was otpiaml in all CSF samples (r = 0.99; y = 1.05x + 0.09). A modest overestimation was noticed in samples with WBC < 30 × 10(6) /L (r = 0.95; y = 1.21x - 0.15). A good agreement was observed for RBC counts (r = 0.98; y = 1.15x + 0.55), particularly in samples with RBC ≥ 18 × 10(6) /L (r = 0.98; y = 1.01x + 8.90). Between-day precision was good, with coefficient of variations (CVs) lower than 7.2% for both WBC and RBC. The LoBs were 0.1 × 10(6) WBC/L and 1.2 × 10(6) RBC/L, the LoDs were 0.7 × 10(6) WBC/L and 5.5 × 10(6) RBC/L, the LoQs were 2.4 × 10(6) WBC/L and 18.0 × 10(6) RBC/L, respectively. Linearity was excellent (r = 1.00 for both WBC and RBC). Carryover was negligible. Excellent diagnostic agreement was obtained at 4.5 × 10(6) WBC/L cut-off (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 97.4%). CONCLUSION: The UF1000i-BF provides rapid and accurate WBC and RBC counts in clinically relevant values of CSF cells. The use of UF1000i-BF may hence allow to replace routine optical counting, except for samples displaying abnormal WBC counts or abnormal scattergram distribution, for which differential cell counts may still be required.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the new body fluid module on Sysmex UF1000-i (UF1000i-BF) for analysis of white blood cell (WBC) and red blood cell (RBC) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). METHODS: WBC and RBC counting were compared between UF1000i-BF and Fuchs-Rosenthal counting chamber in 67 CSF samples. This study also included the evaluation of between-day precision, limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD), functional sensitivity (limit of quantitation, LoQ), carryover and linearity. Diagnostic agreement for differentiation between normal and increased WBC counts (≥5.0 × 10(6) /L) was also assessed. RESULTS: The agreement between UF1000i-BF and manual WBC counts was otpiaml in all CSF samples (r = 0.99; y = 1.05x + 0.09). A modest overestimation was noticed in samples with WBC < 30 × 10(6) /L (r = 0.95; y = 1.21x - 0.15). A good agreement was observed for RBC counts (r = 0.98; y = 1.15x + 0.55), particularly in samples with RBC ≥ 18 × 10(6) /L (r = 0.98; y = 1.01x + 8.90). Between-day precision was good, with coefficient of variations (CVs) lower than 7.2% for both WBC and RBC. The LoBs were 0.1 × 10(6) WBC/L and 1.2 × 10(6) RBC/L, the LoDs were 0.7 × 10(6) WBC/L and 5.5 × 10(6) RBC/L, the LoQs were 2.4 × 10(6) WBC/L and 18.0 × 10(6) RBC/L, respectively. Linearity was excellent (r = 1.00 for both WBC and RBC). Carryover was negligible. Excellent diagnostic agreement was obtained at 4.5 × 10(6) WBC/L cut-off (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 97.4%). CONCLUSION: The UF1000i-BF provides rapid and accurate WBC and RBC counts in clinically relevant values of CSF cells. The use of UF1000i-BF may hence allow to replace routine optical counting, except for samples displaying abnormal WBC counts or abnormal scattergram distribution, for which differential cell counts may still be required.
Authors: Andrea Perné; Johannes A Hainfellner; Irene Womastek; Alexander Haushofer; Thomas Szekeres; Ilse Schwarzinger Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Dieter De Smet; Guy Van Moer; Geert A Martens; Nikolaos Nanos; Lutgarde Smet; Kristin Jochmans; Marc De Waele Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Robert de Jonge; Rob Brouwer; Marieke T de Graaf; Ronald L Luitwieler; Cherina Fleming; Magda de Frankrijker-Merkestijn; Peter A E Sillevis Smitt; Joke G Boonstra; Jan Lindemans Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: María I Millán-Lou; Juan M García-Lechuz; María A Ruiz-Andrés; Concepción López; María J Aldea; María J Revillo; Antonio Rezusta Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2018-04-09