Performance testing of four automated coagulation analyzers in a university hospital setting with focus on global coagulation assays.

INTRODUCTION: Several automated coagulation analyzers are available for laboratory use. In a university hospital central laboratory, we compared four different instruments. The results for global coagulation assays are presented here. METHODS: ACL TOP 750 CTS (Instrumentation Laboratory), Atellica COAG 360 (COAG 360), BCS XP (both Siemens Healthineers), and cobas t 711 (Roche Diagnostics) were compared. For inter-instrument comparison, five basic coagulation parameters were analyzed in 476 patient plasma samples. Additional assessments included precision testing using commercial control samples and plasma pools, analysis time for a defined set of samples, sample capacity testing, minimum required sample volumes, and detection quality for hemolytic, icteric, or lipemic (HIL) interferences. RESULTS: Good concordance between different instruments was evident from Bland-Altman plots and comparison of data from each instrument with the overall median (τ≥0.8). Shortest analysis times were found for BCS XP and COAG 360, COAG 360 revealed highest sample capacity. Observed required sample volumes were broadly in line with manufacturer specifications and varied according to instrument configurations. HIL detection differed between instruments and was best with ACL TOP 750 CTS. CONCLUSION: The four analyzers showed similarly high levels of concordance, although some variations were apparent. The most significant differences between the instruments were found in analysis times and sample capacity. Analyzer capabilities must be considered when selecting laboratory equipment and defining algorithms for clinical practice.

Inter-intra instrument comparison and standardization of a 10-color immunophenotyping for B and T cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis and monitoring.

Harmonization of flow cytometry protocols from instrument settings to antibody panel and reagents is highly encouraged for inter-laboratory data comparison in both research and clinical settings, especially for minimal residual disease monitoring evaluation in hematological diseases across centers. Here, we described inter-intra instrument comparison of two standardized 10-color staining dried tubes for B- and T-cell lymphoproliferative disorder diagnosis and monitoring on two different flow cytometers, a Beckman Coulter NaviosEx and a Beckman Coulter DxFlex. A total of 47 consecutive patients were enrolled, and 39 of them were evaluable for further studies. We show highly comparable results between the two cytometers for cell frequency and fluorescence intensity signals for both standardized 10-color staining dried tubes. For this latter, fluorescence of each antibody and subject was normalized on the mean value obtained from the entire study cohort thus reducing the effects of biological variability and allowing comparison between instruments with different detector sensitivity. In summary, dried tubes were confirmed as an optimal standardized diagnostic tool, especially when associated with EuroFlow standardized procedures by minimizing technical and biological variability. However, data analysis is still operator-dependent, and more efforts are needed to develop automated or semi-automated software for flow cytometry data analysis for diagnostic purposes.