Abstract
Background: Various types of automated hematology analyzers are used in clinical laboratories. Here, we performed a side-by-side comparison of five current top of the range routine hematology analyzers in the setting of a university hospital central laboratory.
Methods: Complete blood counts (CBC), differentials, reticulocyte and nucleated red blood cell (NRBC) counts of 349 patient samples, randomly taken out of routine diagnostics, were analyzed with Cell-Dyn Sapphire (Abbott), DxH 800 (Beckman Coulter), Advia 2120i (Siemens), XE-5000 and XN-2000 (Sysmex). Inter-instrument comparison of CBCs including reticulocyte and NRBC counts and investigation of flagging quality in relation to microscopy were performed with the complete set of samples. Inter-instrument comparison of five-part differential was performed using samples without atypical cells in blood smear (n=292). Automated five-part differentials and NRBCs were additionally compared with microscopy.
Results: The five analyzers showed a good concordance for basic blood count parameters. Correlations between instruments were less well for reticulocyte counts, NRBCs, and differentials. The poorest concordance for NRBCs with microscopy was observed for Advia 2120i (Kendall’s τb=0.37). The highest flagging sensitivity for blasts was observed for XN-2000 (97% compared to 65%–76% for other analyzers), whereas overall specificity was comparable between different instruments.
Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive side-by-side comparison of five current top of the range routine hematology analyzers. Variable analyzer quality and parameter specific limitations must be considered in defining laboratory algorithms in clinical practice.
Acknowledgments
We thank Abbott, Beckman Coulter, Siemens and Sysmex for their support of the study by providing their instruments for evaluation free of charge.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Financial support: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. Tan BT, Nava AJ, George TI. Evaluation of the Beckman Coulter UniCel DxH 800, Beckman Coulter LH 780, and Abbott Diagnostics Cell-Dyn Sapphire hematology analyzers on adult specimens in a tertiary care hospital. Am J Clin Pathol 2011;135:939–51.10.1309/AJCP1V3UXEIQTSLESearch in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Meintker L, Ringwald J, Rauh M, Krause SW. Comparison of automated differential blood cell counts from Abbott Sapphire, Siemens Advia 120, Beckman Coulter DxH 800, and Sysmex XE-2100 in normal and pathologic samples. Am J Clin Pathol 2013;139:641–50.10.1309/AJCP7D8ECZRXGWCGSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Hotton J, Broothaers J, Swaelens C, Cantinieaux B. Performance and abnormal cell flagging comparisons of three automated blood cell counters: Cell-Dyn Sapphire, DxH-800, and XN-2000. Am J Clin Pathol 2013;140:845–52.10.1309/AJCPE5R4SOQBUULZSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Briggs C, Longair I, Kumar P, Singh D, Machin SJ. Performance evaluation of the Sysmex haematology XN modular system. J Clin Pathol 2012;65:1024–30.10.1136/jclinpath-2012-200930Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. ICSH guidelines for the evaluation of blood cell analysers including those used for differential leucocyte and reticulocyte counting. International Council for Standardization in Haematology, Writing Group: Briggs C, Culp N, Davis B, d`Onofrio G, Zini G, Machin SJ; the International Council for Standardization of Haematology. Int J Lab Hematol 2014;36:613–27.10.1111/ijlh.12201Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Reference leukocyte (WBC) differential count (proportional) and evaluation of instrumental methods; CLSI document H20-A2 Approved Standard, 2nd ed. Wayne, PA: CLSI, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
7. International Society for Laboratory Hematology. Consensus rules: consensus guidelines-positive smear findings. Available from: http://www.islh.org/2010/index.php?page=consensus_smear. Accessed on December 22, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
8. Müller R, Mellors I, Johannessen B, Aarsand AK, Kiefer P, Hardy J, et al. European multi-center evaluation of the Abbott Cell-Dyn sapphire hematology analyzer. Lab Hematol 2006;12:15–31.10.1532/LH96.05041Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Jean A, Boutet C, Lenormand B, Callat MP, Buchonnet G, Barbay V, et al. The new haematology analyzer DxH 800: an evaluation of the analytical performances and leucocyte flags, comparison with the LH 755. Int J Lab Hematol 2011;33:138–45.10.1111/j.1751-553X.2010.01257.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Harris N, Jou JM, Devoto G, Lotz J, Pappas J, Wranovics D, et al. Performance evaluation of the ADVIA 2120 hematology analyzer: an international multicenter clinical trial. Lab Hematol 2005;11:62–70.10.1532/LH96.04064Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Passing H, Bablok W. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1983;21:709–20.Search in Google Scholar
12. Kendall MG. The treatment of ties in ranking problems. Biometrika 1945;33:239–51.10.1093/biomet/33.3.239Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10.Search in Google Scholar
14. Pipitone S, Pavesi F, Testa B, Bardi M, Perri GB, Gennari D, et al. Evaluation of automated nucleated red blood cells counting on Sysmex XE5000 and Siemens ADVIA 2120. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:1857–9.10.1515/cclm-2012-0148Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Kwon MJ, Nam MH, Kim SH, Lim CS, Lee CK, Cho Y, et al. Evaluation of the nucleated red blood cell count in neonates using the Beckman Coulter UniCel DxH 800 analyzer. Int J Lab Hematol 2011;33:620–8.10.1111/j.1751-553X.2011.01335.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Barnes PW, Eby CS, Shimer G. Blast flagging with the UniCel DxH 800 Coulter Cellular Analysis System. Lab Hematol 2010;16:23–5.10.1532/LH96.09015Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Kim SJ, Kim Y, Shin S, Song J, Choi JR. Comparison study of the rates of manual peripheral blood smear review from 3 automated hematology analyzers, Unicel DxH 800, ADVIA 2120i, and XE 2100, using international consensus group guidelines. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2012;136:1408–13.10.5858/arpa.2010-0757-OASearch in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Trabuio E, Valverde S, Antico F, Manoni F, Gessoni G. Performance of automated platelet quantification using different analyzers in comparison with an immunological reference method in thrombocytopenic patients. Blood Transfus 2009;7:43–8.Search in Google Scholar
19. Tanaka Y, Tanaka Y, Gondo K, Maruki Y, Kondo T, Asai S, et al. Performance evaluation of platelet counting by novel fluorescent dye staining in the XN-series automated hematology analyzers. J Clin Lab Anal 2014;28:341–8.10.1002/jcla.21691Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
20. Grimaldi E, Carandente P, Scopacasa F, Romano MF, Pellegrino M, Bisogni R, et al. Evaluation of the monocyte counting by two automated haematology analyzers compared with flow cytometry. Clin Lab Haematol 2005;27:91–7.10.1111/j.1365-2257.2005.00676.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Baschat AA, Gungor S, Kush ML, Berg C, Gembruch U, Harman CR. Nucleated red blood cell counts in the first week of life: a critical appraisal of relationships with perinatal outcome in preterm growth-restricted neonates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:286.e1–8.10.1016/j.ajog.2007.06.020Search in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Stachon A, Segbers E, Holland-Letz T, Kempf R, Hering S, Krieg M. Nucleated red blood cells in the blood of medical intensive care patients indicate increased mortality risk: a prospective cohort study. Crit Care 2007;11:R62.10.1186/cc5932Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
23. Tan BT, Nava AJ, George TI. Evaluation of the Beckman Coulter UniCel DxH 800 and Abbott Diagnostics Cell-Dyn Sapphire hematology analyzers on pediatric and neonatal specimens in a tertiary care hospital. Am J Clin Pathol 2011;135:929–38.10.1309/AJCP2EXNSLGGRVSQSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Eilertsen H, Vøllestad NK, Hagve TA. The usefulness of blast flags on the Sysmex XE-5000 is questionable. Am J Clin Pathol 2013;139:633–40.10.1309/AJCPDUZVRN5VY9WZSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Buttarello M, Plebani M. Automated blood cell counts: state of the art. Am J Clin Pathol 2008;130:104–16.10.1309/EK3C7CTDKNVPXVTNSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
26. Sandhaus LM, Osei ES, Agrawal NN, Dillman CA, Meyerson HJ. Platelet counting by the coulter LH 750, sysmex XE 2100, and advia 120: a comparative analysis using the RBC/platelet ratio reference method. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:235–41.10.1309/MK3G-MC3V-P06R-PNV2Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Supplemental Material
The online version of this article (DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2014-0495) offers supplementary material, available to authorized users.
©2015 by De Gruyter
