Effect of storage on microcytosis observed in dogs with portosystemic vascular anomalies.

Microcytosis is a common laboratory finding in dogs with iron deficiency and congenital portosystemic vascular anomalies (PSVA), however artefactual changes due to blood storage may occur which could mask this feature. This study evaluated the effects of storage on microcytosis in dogs with congenital PSVA. Full haematological parameters were measured on the day of sampling and following 24h storage at room temperature, in unaffected dogs (n=13) and in dogs affected with PSVA (n=24). Storage for 24h resulted in significantly higher MCV values in both groups of dogs (P<0.01). The percentage increase in MCV was greater in the control dogs (median 8.07%, range 5.64-9.31%) compared to affected dogs (median 6.05%, range 3.12-15.21%) (P<0.02). Storage of 1ml EDTA blood samples at ambient temperature for 24h prior to analysis, as occurs when samples are posted to external laboratories, will have significant effects on MCV and may mask microcytosis in dogs with PSVA.

Comparison of white blood cell differential percentages determined by the in-house LaserCyte hematology analyzer and a manual method.

BACKGROUND: The LaserCyte hematology analyzer (IDEXX Laboratories, Chalfont St. Peter, Bucks, UK) is the first in-house laser-based single channel flow cytometer designed specifically for veterinary practice. The instrument provides a full hematologic analysis including a 5-part WBC differential (LC-diff%). We are unaware of published studies comparing LC-diff% results to those determined by other methods used in practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare LC-diff% results to those obtained by a manual differential cell count (M-diff%). METHODS: Eighty-six venous blood samples from 44 dogs and 42 cats were collected into EDTA tubes at the Forest Veterinary Centre (Epping, UK). Samples were analyzed using the LaserCyte within 1 hour of collection. Unstained blood smears were then posted to Langford Veterinary Diagnostics, University of Bristol, and stained with modified Wright's stain. One hundred-cell manual differential counts were performed by 2 technicians and the mean percentage was calculated for each cell type. Data (LC-diff% vs M-diff%) were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank tests, Deming regression, and Bland-Altman difference plots. RESULTS: Significant differences between methods were found for neutrophil and monocyte percentages in samples from dogs and cats and for eosinophil percentage in samples from cats. Correlations (r) (canine/feline) were .55/.72 for neutrophils, .76/.69 for lymphocytes, .05/.29 for monocytes and .60/.82 for eosinophils. Agreement between LC-diff% and Mdiff% results was poor in samples from both species. Bland-Altman plots revealed outliers in samples with atypical WBCs (1 cat), leukocytosis (2 dogs, 9 cats), and leukopenia (16 dogs, 11 cats). The LaserCyte generated error flags in 28 of 86 (32.6%) samples, included 7 with leukopenia, 8 with lymphopenia, 7 with leukocytosis, 1 with anemia, and 1 with erythrocytosis. When results from these 28 samples were excluded, correlations from the remaining nonflagged results (canine/feline) were .63/.65 for neutrophils, .67/.65 for lymphocytes, .11/.33 for monocytes, and .63/.82 for eosinophils. CONCLUSION: Although use of a 100-cell (vs 200-cell) M-diff% may be a limitation of our study, good correlation between WBC differentials obtained using the LaserCyte and the manual method was achieved only for feline eosinophils.