Abstract Number: PB0348
Meeting: ISTH 2021 Congress
Background: In thrombocytopenic patients, platelet transfusion is a necessary treatment modality. However, it can potentially leads to transfusion-related complications. Consequently, appropriate evaluation of platelet counts is of utmost importance. There are multiple automated platelet analyzers commercially available, which usually employ one of the following counting methods: optical, impedance or immunoplatelet. However, there were several reports on the discrepancies between results obtained from these methods.
Aims: To assess the correlation between platelet counts obtained from analyzers using different counting methods (optical, impedance and immunoplatelet) in normal people and thrombocytopenic patients.
Methods: Blood samples were collected from normal people (platelet count at least 150 x 109/liters) and thrombocytopenic patients (platelet count less than 50 x 109/liters.) Blood smears were checked in thrombocytopenic samples for possible interferences (microcytosis, cell fragments, giant platelets.) The first counts were obtained using Advia 2120i optical analyzer (Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.) The samples were then reanalyzed using LH780 impedance analyzers (Beckmann Coulter, California, USA) and CELL-DYN Sapphire CD61 immunoplatelet analyzer (Abbott Laboratories, Illinois, USA.) The results obtained from different methods would then be compared.
Results: 20 normal and 154 thrombocytopenic samples were collected. 26 thrombocytopenic samples contained possible interferences. In normal people, the correlation coefficients (R) between optical-impedance (R1), optical-immunoplatelet (R2) and impedance-immunoplatelet (R3) methods were 0.96, 0.98 and 0.97, respectively. In thrombocytopenic patients, R1, R2 and R3 were 0.94, 0.88 and 0.88, respectively. In samples with interferences, R1, R2 and R3 were 0.93, 0.66 and 0.77, respectively. Using Bland-Altman plots, it could be observed that both the optical and impedance methods usually overestimated platelet counts compared to the immunoplatelet method.
Conclusions: There were discrepancies between platelet counts obtained using optical, impedance and CD61-immunoplatelet methods in thrombocytopenic samples, especially those with interferences. These differences may be of clinical significance, since platelet counts are used as indicators for transfusions.
To cite this abstract in AMA style:Nguyen T, Tran P-, Tran T, Nguyen T, Nguyen T. Comparison of Platelet Counts Using Impedance, Optical and CD61-immunoplatelet Methods in Thrombocytopenic Patients [abstract]. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2021; 5 (Suppl 2). https://abstracts.isth.org/abstract/comparison-of-platelet-counts-using-impedance-optical-and-cd61-immunoplatelet-methods-in-thrombocytopenic-patients/. Accessed November 28, 2021.
« Back to ISTH 2021 Congress
ISTH Congress Abstracts - https://abstracts.isth.org/abstract/comparison-of-platelet-counts-using-impedance-optical-and-cd61-immunoplatelet-methods-in-thrombocytopenic-patients/