Comparison of automated platelet counts and potential effect on transfusion decisions in cancer patients.
cross_sectional · Level IV
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 24124156.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1309/AJCP58INTITVGQZI.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To evaluate the accuracy of platelet counts from various hematology analyzers using a reference immunologic method. We tested 403 samples with platelet counts less than 50 × 10(9)/L with the Advia (Siemens, Tarrytown, NY), Sysmex (Mundelein, IL), and Abbott (Santa Clara, CA) analyzers. All methods showed a positive bias, especially at less than 20 × 10(9)/L and less than 10 × 10(9)/L. Undertransfusion risk ranged from 9.1% to 43.3 % in the groups below 20 × 10(9)/L and below 10 × 10(9)/L, respectively. For patients with optical counts more than 10 × 10(9)/L and CD61 less than 10 × 10(9)/L, 64.5% were transfused within 24 hours of the reported count, while 35.5% were transfused in more than 24 hours, after a subsequent optical platelet count of 10 × 10(9)/L or less was reported. Although optical and impedance methods were shown to be falsely increased in severely thrombocytopenic samples, further studies are needed to determine if more accurate methods would be clinically useful.
Medical subject headings
- Automation, Laboratory
- Blood Transfusion
- Clinical Laboratory Techniques
- Neoplasms
- Platelet Count