Startseite Medizin Comparison of five automated hematology analyzers in a university hospital setting: Abbott Cell-Dyn Sapphire, Beckman Coulter DxH 800, Siemens Advia 2120i, Sysmex XE-5000, and Sysmex XN-2000
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Comparison of five automated hematology analyzers in a university hospital setting: Abbott Cell-Dyn Sapphire, Beckman Coulter DxH 800, Siemens Advia 2120i, Sysmex XE-5000, and Sysmex XN-2000

  • Mathias Bruegel EMAIL logo , Dorothea Nagel , Manuela Funk , Petra Fuhrmann , Johannes Zander und Daniel Teupser
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 13. Januar 2015
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

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.


Corresponding author: Mathias Bruegel, Institute of Laboratory Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377 Munich, Germany, Phone: +49 89 4400 73209, Fax: +49 89 4400 78888, E-mail:

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/AJCP1V3UXEIQTSLESuche 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/AJCP7D8ECZRXGWCGSuche 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/AJCPE5R4SOQBUULZSuche 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-2012-200930Suche 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.12201Suche 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.Suche 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.Suche 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/LH96.05041Suche 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.xSuche 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/LH96.04064Suche 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.Suche in Google Scholar

12. Kendall MG. The treatment of ties in ranking problems. Biometrika 1945;33:239–51.10.1093/biomet/33.3.239Suche 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.Suche 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-2012-0148Suche 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.xSuche 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/LH96.09015Suche 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-OASuche 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.Suche 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.21691Suche 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.xSuche 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.2007.06.020Suche 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/cc5932Suche 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/AJCP2EXNSLGGRVSQSuche 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/AJCPDUZVRN5VY9WZSuche 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/EK3C7CTDKNVPXVTNSuche 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-PNV2Suche 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.


Received: 2014-9-24
Accepted: 2014-12-7
Published Online: 2015-1-13
Published in Print: 2015-6-1

©2015 by De Gruyter

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Personalized medicine: moving from simple theory to daily practice
  4. Evaluating and using innovative technologies: a lesson from Theranos?
  5. Review
  6. Emerging biomarkers in the detection and prognosis of prostate cancer
  7. Mini Review
  8. Could molecular assessment of calcium metabolism be a useful tool to early screen patients at risk for pre-eclampsia complicated pregnancy? Proposal and rationale
  9. Opinion Papers
  10. Is laboratory medicine ready for the era of personalized medicine? A survey addressed to laboratory directors of hospitals/academic schools of medicine in Europe
  11. Theranos phenomenon: promises and fallacies
  12. Clinical laboratories: production industry or medical services?
  13. Genetics and Molecular Diagnostics
  14. Role of JAK2 V617F mutation and aberrant expression of microRNA-143 in myeloproliferative neoplasms
  15. Direct identification of Gram-positive bacteria and resistance determinants from blood cultures using a microarray-based nucleic acid assay: in-depth analysis of microarray data for undetermined results
  16. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  17. Comparison between bottom-up and top-down approaches in the estimation of measurement uncertainty
  18. Role of vitamin D and sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in the development of early- and late-onset preeclampsia
  19. Adenosine deaminase, dipeptidyl peptidase-IV activities and lipid peroxidation are increased in the saliva of obese young adult
  20. PON-1 and ferroxidase activities in older patients with mild cognitive impairment, late onset Alzheimer’s disease or vascular dementia
  21. Comparison of five automated hematology analyzers in a university hospital setting: Abbott Cell-Dyn Sapphire, Beckman Coulter DxH 800, Siemens Advia 2120i, Sysmex XE-5000, and Sysmex XN-2000
  22. Dacryocytes are a common morphologic feature of autoimmune and microangiopathic haemolytic anaemia
  23. Performance characteristics of a new automated method for measurement of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide
  24. The clinical performance of a chemiluminescent immunoassay in detecting anti-cardiolipin and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies. A comparison with a homemade ELISA method
  25. Reference Values and Biological Variations
  26. Reference interval for immature platelet fraction on Sysmex XN hematology analyzer: a comparison study with Sysmex XE-2100
  27. Development of the first urinary reproductive hormone ranges referenced to independently determined ovulation day
  28. Cancer Diagnostics
  29. Urinary miR-183 and miR-205 do not surpass PCA3 in urine as predictive markers for prostate biopsy outcome despite their highly dysregulated expression in prostate cancer tissue
  30. Cardiovascular Diseases
  31. Elevated circulating levels of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 in obese children
  32. Letters to the Editors
  33. Reporting of hemolysis index (HI) with laboratory results should be obligatory in newborns and infants
  34. Unmeasurably high chloride: a surrogate marker of thiocyanate poisoning identification
  35. Association between red cell distribution width and myocardial infarction in rheumatoid arthritis
  36. Plasmatic and urinary glycosaminoglycan profile in a patient affected by multiple sulfatase deficiency
  37. Rapid diagnosis of cryptococcal meningitis by Türk staining
  38. A high selectivity and sensitivity analytical method for the analysis of 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine in the urine of Alzheimer’s disease patients
  39. S100B protein concentration measurement according to two different immunoassays
Heruntergeladen am 7.12.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2014-0945/html?lang=de
Button zum nach oben scrollen