Department of Laboratory Medicine & Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Int J Lab Hematol. 2021 Jun;43(3):387-394. doi: 10.1111/ijlh.13396. Epub 2020 Nov 20.
Accurate platelet counting is essential for risk assessment of bleeding and thrombosis. Abbott Alinity hq hematology analyzer was recently introduced, and its performance in platelet counting has yet to be evaluated comprehensively. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the optical platelet counting of Abbott Alinity hq (Alinity-PLT) and the impedance and fluorescent platelet counting of Sysmex XN-9000 (XN-PLT-I and XN-PLT-F) compared with the international reference method.
Blood samples were analyzed via Alinity hq and XN-9000 with PLT-F channel. Immuno-platelet (ImmnoPLT) reference method was performed with CD41/CD61 antibodies using FACSLyric flow cytometer (BD). Precision was determined using 10 replicates in a single run, and the platelet counts of Alinity-PLT, XN-PLT-I, XN-PLT-F, and ImmnoPLT were compared.
At a platelet count of 13 × 10 /L, the CVs of Alinity-PLT, XN-PLT-I, and XN-PLT-F were 4.2%, 6.7%, and 4.3%, respectively, and at a platelet count of 44 × 10 /L, all showed a CV of less than 3%. For the total 210 samples, all three methods showed a very strong correlation with ImmunoPLT (r > 0.99). For platelet levels below 20 × 10 /L, XN-PLT-F showed the strongest correlation with ImmunoPLT (r = 0.975), and for platelet levels of 20-100 × 10 /L, Alinity-PLT and XN-PLT-I were comparable to ImmunoPLT. For platelet levels of 100-450 × 10 /L, XN-PLT-I was the most comparable to ImmunoPLT, and for platelet levels above 450 × 10 /L, Alinity-PLT was comparable to ImmunoPLT.
All three methods were highly correlated with ImmunoPLT, and each method had different performance advantages according to the platelet levels.
准确的血小板计数对于出血和血栓形成的风险评估至关重要。雅培 Alinity hq 血液分析仪最近推出，其血小板计数性能尚未得到全面评估。在这项研究中，我们评估了雅培 Alinity hq 的光学血小板计数（Alinity-PLT）、希森美康 XN-9000 的阻抗和荧光血小板计数（XN-PLT-I 和 XN-PLT-F）与国际参考方法的性能。
通过 Alinity hq 和 XN-9000 与 PLT-F 通道分析血样。采用 CD41/CD61 抗体的免疫血小板（ImmnoPLT）参考方法，使用 FACSLyric 流式细胞仪（BD）进行。在单次运行中使用 10 个重复进行精密度测定，并比较 Alinity-PLT、XN-PLT-I、XN-PLT-F 和 ImmnoPLT 的血小板计数。
在血小板计数为 13×10/L 时，Alinity-PLT、XN-PLT-I 和 XN-PLT-F 的 CV 分别为 4.2%、6.7%和 4.3%，在血小板计数为 44×10/L 时，所有 CV 均小于 3%。对于总共 210 个样本，所有三种方法与 ImmunoPLT 均显示出很强的相关性（r>0.99）。对于血小板水平低于 20×10/L，XN-PLT-F 与 ImmunoPLT 的相关性最强（r=0.975），对于 20-100×10/L 的血小板水平，Alinity-PLT 和 XN-PLT-I 与 ImmunoPLT 相当。对于 100-450×10/L 的血小板水平，XN-PLT-I 与 ImmunoPLT 最为可比，对于高于 450×10/L 的血小板水平，Alinity-PLT 与 ImmunoPLT 相当。
所有三种方法与 ImmunoPLT 高度相关，根据血小板水平，每种方法都有不同的性能优势。
