Laboratory Medicine ›› 2015, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (3): 274-279.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8640.2015.03.018

• Orginal Article • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparison and application of low platelet counts by CD61 immunological, optical, electrical impedance methods of CELL-DYN Sapphire hematology analyzer

ZHANG Chi, ZHANG Hongbo   

  1. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Hubei Wuhan 430030, China
  • Received:2014-07-03 Online:2015-03-30 Published:2015-04-16

Abstract: Objective

To evaluate and compare the advantages and disadvantages of 3 detection methods of CELL-DYN Sapphire hematology analyzer in the aspect of low platelet (PLT) detection.

Methods

A total of 100 patients whose platelet <50×109/L caused by basis hematonosis or after chemotherapy were enrolled. PLT counts were determined by electrical impedance method (IPLT), optical method (OPLP) and CD61 immunological method (CD61-PLT). The results were analyzed comparatively with those of manual microscopy. Variance analysis, Passing-Bablok regression analysis and Bland-Altman bias analysis were performed by SPSS 19.0 and MedCalc V12.7.2.0 softwares statistically.

Results

ANOVA analysis showed that there was statistical significance for IPLT and OPLT with manual method (MPLT). (P=0.00, P=0.002). CD61-PLT and MPLT had no statistical significance (P=0.915). OPLT and CD61-PLT had good correlation with MPLT without statistical significance[slope 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI):0.95-1.06, r=0.946 and slope 1.0, 95%CI: 0.99-1.01, r=0.998]. IPLT had poor correlation with MPLT with statistical significantce (slope 1.27, 95%CI: 1.10-1.44, r=0.845). According to variance analysis, the values of IPLT and OPLT were higher than those of MPLT (mean deviations were 6.3 and 1.3). CD61-PLT and MPLT had no significant difference(mean deviation was -0.02).

Conclusions

IPLT has significantly statistical difference with MPLT for low PLT determination, with poor correlation, and the result has a significant upward deviation. The means of OPLT and MPLT have statistical significance with good correlation, but the result has a still small upward deviation. The CD61-PLT and MPLT have no obvious difference with a good correlation, and the results are not significantly different. Therefore, it is recommended that we can use CD61-PLT as a new reference method and OPLT and IPLT as alternative methods.

Key words: Low platelet, CD61 immunological method, Optical method, Electrical impedance method, CD-SAPPHIRE, Prophylactic platelet transfusion

CLC Number: