Digital Morphology Analyzer Sysmex DI-60 vs. Manual Counting for White Blood Cell Differentials in Leukopenic Samples: A Comparative Assessment of Risk and Turnaround Time
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background: Digital morphology (DM) analyzers are increasingly being used for white blood cell (WBC) differentials. We assessed the laboratory efficiency of the Sysmex DI-60 system (DI-60; Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) in comparison with manual counting in leukopenic samples. Methods: In total, 40 peripheral blood smear samples were divided into normal, mild leukopenia, moderate leukopenia, and severe leukopenia groups based on WBC count. In each group, the risk and turnaround time (TAT) were compared between DI-60 and manual counting. Risk was determined by failure mode and effect analysis using the risk priority number (RPN) score, and TAT was recorded for the analytical phase. Results: Overall, DI-60 showed a five-fold lower risk (70 vs. 350 RPN) and longer TAT than manual counting. In severe leukopenic samples, DI-60 showed a shorter TAT/slide and a remarkably lower cell count/slide than manual counting. In all samples, the TAT/cell for DI-60 was substantially longer than that for manual counting (DI-60 vs. manual: total, 1.8 vs. 1.0 sec; normal, 1.5 vs. 0.7 sec; mild leukopenia, 1.9 vs. 0.9 sec; moderate leukopenia, 1.8 vs. 1.0 sec; severe leukopenia, 28.8 vs. 19.0 sec). Conclusions: This is the first comparative assessment of risk and TAT between DI-60 and manual counting in leukopenic samples. DI-60 decreases the laboratory risk and improves patient safety, but requires more time to count fewer cells, especially in severe leukopenic samples. DM analyzers should be applied selectively depending on the WBC count to optimize laboratory efficiency.
Abstract
Background: Digital morphology (DM) analyzers are increasingly being used for white blood cell (WBC) differentials. We assessed the laboratory efficiency of the Sysmex DI-60 system (DI-60; Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) in comparison with manual counting in leukopenic samples. Methods: In total, 40 peripheral blood smear samples were divided into normal, mild leukopenia, moderate leukopenia, and severe leukopenia groups based on WBC count. In each group, the risk and turnaround time (TAT) were compared between DI-60 and manual counting. Risk was determined by failure mode and effect analysis using the risk priority number (RPN) score, and TAT was recorded for the analytical phase. Results: Overall, DI-60 showed a five-fold lower risk (70 vs. 350 RPN) and longer TAT than manual counting. In severe leukopenic samples, DI-60 showed a shorter TAT/slide and a remarkably lower cell count/slide than manual counting. In all samples, the TAT/cell for DI-60 was substantially longer than that for manual counting (DI-60 vs. manual: total, 1.8 vs. 1.0 sec; normal, 1.5 vs. 0.7 sec; mild leukopenia, 1.9 vs. 0.9 sec; moderate leukopenia, 1.8 vs. 1.0 sec; severe leukopenia, 28.8 vs. 19.0 sec). Conclusions: This is the first comparative assessment of risk and TAT between DI-60 and manual counting in leukopenic samples. DI-60 decreases the laboratory risk and improves patient safety, but requires more time to count fewer cells, especially in severe leukopenic samples. DM analyzers should be applied selectively depending on the WBC count to optimize laboratory efficiency.
참고문헌 (29)
- Stouten K, "Examination of peripheral blood smears : performance evaluation of a digital microscope system using a large-scale leukocyte database", Int J Lab Hematol, 37, pp.e137~e140 (2015)
- CLSI, "Reference leukocytes (WBC) differential count (proportional) and evaluation of instrumental methods; approval guideline" (2007), Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute
- Kratz A, "Digital morphology analyzers in hematology : ICSH review and recommendations", Int J Lab Hematol, 41, pp.437~447 (2019)
- Novis DA, "Laboratory productivity and the rate of manual peripheral blood smear review: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 95,141 complete blood count determinations performed in 263 institutions", Arch Pathol Lab Med, 130, pp.596~601 (2006)
- Kratz A, "Rebuttal of a paper submitted by Hans-Inge Bengtsson Comment", Int J Lab Hematol, 42, pp.e216~e217 (2020)
- Tatsumi N, "Automated image processing. Past, present, and future of blood cell morphology identification", Clin Lab Med, 22, pp.299~315 (2002)
- Kratz A, "Performance evaluation of the CellaVision DM96 system : WBC differentials by automated digital image analysis supported by an artificial neural network", Am J Clin Pathol, 124, pp.770~781 (2005)
- Cornet E, "Performance evaluation and relevance of the CellaVision DM96 system in routine analysis and in patients with malignant hematological diseases", Int J Lab Hematol, 30, pp.536~542 (2008)
- Park SH, "Automated digital cell morphology identification system(CellaVision DM96)is very useful for leukocyte differentials in specimens with qualitative or quantitative abnormalities", Int J Lab Hematol, 35, pp.517~527 (2013)
- Tabe Y, "Performance evaluation of the digital cell imaging analyzer DI-60 integrated into the fully automated Sysmex XN hematology analyzer system", Clin Chem Lab Med, 53, pp.281~289 (2015)
- Kim HN, "Performance of automated digital cell imaging analyzer Sysmex DI-60", Clin Chem Lab Med, 56, pp.94~102 (2017)
- Yoon S, "Performance of digital morphology analyzer Vision Pro on white blood cell differentials", Clin Chem Lab Med, 59, pp.1099~1106 (2021)
- Sarah W Njoroge, "Risk Management in the Clinical Laboratory", Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 34(4), pp.274~278 (2014), 대한진단검사의학회
- Sciacovelli L, "Quality indicators in laboratory medicine : the status of the progress of IFCC working group"Laboratory errors and patient safety"project", Clin Chem Lab Med, 55, pp.348~357 (2017)
- "Medical laboratories-application of risk management to medical laboratories", International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 22367, ~ (2020)
- CLSI, "Laboratory quality control based on risk management; approved guideline" (2011), Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute
- Holland LL, "Reducing laboratory turnaround time outliers can reduce emergency department patient length of stay : an 11-hospital study", Am J Clin Pathol, 124, pp.672~674 (2005)
- Dolci A, "Total laboratory automation : do stat tests still matter?", Clin Biochem, 50, pp.605~611 (2017)
- Lippi G, "Advantages and limitations of total laboratory automation : a personal overview", Clin Chem Lab Med, 57, pp.802~811 (2019)
- Pantanowitz L, "Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology : guideline from the College of American Pathologists pathology and laboratory quality center", Arch Pathol Lab Med, 137, pp.1710~1722 (2013)
- Rosetti M, "Could the UKNEQAS program"Manual differential blood count"be performed by the use of an automated digital morphology analyzer(Sysmex DI-60)? A feasibility study", Clin Chem Lab Med, 59, pp.e161~e164 (2021)
- Saloustros E, "Prophylactic and therapeutic strategies in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia", Expert Opin Pharmacother, 12, pp.851~863 (2011)
- Jiang Y, "Application of failure mode and effects analysis in a clinical chemistry laboratory", Clin Chim Acta, 448, pp.80~85 (2015)
- Han TH, "The role of failure modes and effects analysis in showing the benefits of automation in the blood bank", Transfusion, 53, pp.1077~1082 (2013)
- Chung HJ, "Benefits of VISION Max automated cross-matching in comparison with manual cross-matching : a multidimensional analysis", PLoS One, 14, pp.e0226477~ (2019)
- Chinudomwong P, "Improving the efficiency of the autoverification workflow for nucleated red blood cell reporting in the hematology laboratory", Int J Lab Hematol, 43, pp.1373~1378 (2021)
- Hawkins RC, "Laboratory turnaround time", Clin Biochem Rev, 28, pp.179~194 (2007)
- Lundberg GD, "Acting on significant laboratory results", JAMA, 245, pp.1762~1763 (1981)
- Yoon S, "How reproducible is the data from Sysmex DI-60 in leukopenic samples?", Diagnostics, 11, pp.2173~ (2021)