OBJECTIVE: To determine whether microcytic erythrocytes influence the accuracy of automated platelet (PLT) counting. METHODS: We divided a total of 206 K2 ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)-anticoagulated blood samples into 4 groups, as follows: In group 1 (control group), normal mean corpuscular volume (MCV > 80 fL) and PLT count equal or greater than 140,000/microL (n = 45); group 2, normal MCV, reduced PLT count (< 140 x 10(3)/microL, n = 41); group 3, microcytic samples with normal PLT count (n = 68); and group 4, microcytic samples with reduced PLT count (n = 49). We also compared the platelet counting using electroimpedance (PLT-EI), platelet count using fluorescent optical (PLT-FO), and platelet-count manual (PLT-M) methods, using the Sysmex XE 2100 automatic analyzer. RESULTS: Despite highly significant overall correlations between PLT-EI and PLT-FO, PLT-EI and PLT-M, and PLT-FO and PLT-M (r = 0.95 [all P < .001]), use of the PLT-EI method resulted in widely overestimated PLT counts in microcytic samples (MCV < 80 fL), compared with use of PLT-FO and PLT-M. Our results identify an MCV of 70 fL as the critical threshold below which PLT-EI became unreliable. CONCLUSION: The PLT-EI mode overestimated PLT counts compared with PLT-FO and PLT-M modes in microcytic blood. Therefore, PLT-FO is the preferred method for PLT counting in patients with microcytic anemia when using an automated analyzer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pan et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: