Evaluation of a new point of care automated complete blood count (CBC) analyzer in various clinical settings.

BACKGROUND: WBC counts and differentials are currently performed on complex analyzers in either central or satellite laboratories. Rapid and easy to use point of care (POC) CBC testing can benefit certain outpatient clinical settings, where the greatest clinical need has been demonstrated. METHODS: We evaluated a new POC CBC analyzer Chempaq XBC (Chempaq A/S, Denmark) for hemoglobin, leukocyte counts and 3-part differentials and compared the results with established laboratory based Beckman Coulter LH750 analyzers. The performance of these POC analyzers was tested at multiple clinic locations as a part of regular care on both venous and finger stick blood samples. RESULTS: Method validation parameters including precision, accuracy and linearity studies are within the acceptable limits between POC and lab based analyzers. Method comparison studies at various locations showed good correlation at various clinical settings including ER, primary care, Ob/Gyn, ICU, Pedi clinic, Hematology-Oncology clinics, and in-patient ward's in venous blood samples. In addition, at the hematology-oncology clinic, the comparisons of venous as well as finger stick blood sample analyses showed good correlation. CONCLUSION: The Chempaq XBC analyzer provides accurate hematologic results that can facilitate rapid quantitative assessment of CBC parameters and thus is clinically relevant, especially in outreach clinic settings and in critically ill patients.

Evaluation of an automated digital imaging system, Nextslide Digital Review Network, for examination of peripheral blood smears.

CONTEXT: Several automated digital imaging systems have been introduced in recent years to improve turnaround time and proficiency in examining peripheral blood smears in hematology laboratories. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new automated digital imaging system, Nextslide Digital Review Network (Nextslide), for examination of peripheral blood smears. DESIGN: We evaluated 479 peripheral blood smears, of which 247 (51.6%) were included for comparison of Nextslide and manual white blood cell differential counts and morphology evaluation, 204 (42.6%) were included for comparison of Nextslide and CellaVision (DM96) differential counts, and 28 (5.8%) were neonatal samples examined for enumeration of nucleated red blood cells. RESULTS: Results from both method comparisons showed excellent correlation for all major white blood cell classes with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.70 to 0.99. Evaluation of white blood cell, red blood cell, and platelet morphology also showed good correlation among methods. White blood cell preclassification capability in the system was evaluated for rate and accuracy. Leukopenic samples demonstrated markedly decreased review time with Nextslide. Enumeration of nucleated red blood cells showed good correlation among methods. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation of Nextslide shows excellent correlation when compared with conventional manual differentials and CellaVision (DM96) differentials for evaluation of peripheral blood smears.