RESUMEN
Introduction The hemogram and hemogram-derivative ratios (HDRs) are becoming markers of the severity and mortality of COVID-19. We evaluated the hemograms and serial weekly HDRs [neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), neutrophil-platelet ratio (NPR) and systemic immune-inflammatory index (SII)] in the survivors and non-survivors of COVID-19. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical notes and serial hemograms of real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 adults hospitalized from April 2020 to March 2021 from the time of diagnosis to the 3rd week of diagnosis. Results Of the 320 adults, 257 (80.3%) were survivors and had a lower mean age than the non-survivors (57.73 vs. 64.65 years, p < 0.001). At diagnosis, the non-survivors had lower hematocrit (p = 0.021), and lymphocyte (p = 0.002) and basophil (p = 0.049) counts and the hematocrit showed a p-value (Is this what you meant???) of 0.021); higher NLR (p < 0.001), PLR (p = 0.047), NPR (p = 0.022) and SII (p = 0.022). Using general linear models, the survivors and non-survivors showed significant variations with weekly lymphocyte count (p < 0.001), neutrophil count (p = 0.005), NLR (p = 0.009), MLR (p = 0.010) and PLR (p = 0.035). All HDRs remained higher in the non-survivors in the 2nd week and 3rd week of diagnosis and the HDRs were higher in the intubated patients than in the non-intubated patients. The NLR and SII were more efficient predictors of mortality in COVID-19 patients. Conclusions This study shows that serial lymphocyte and neutrophil counts, NLR, PLR, MLR, NPR and SII could serve as good and easily accessible markers of severity and predictors of outcomes in COVID-19 patients and should be used for the monitoring of treatment response.
RESUMEN
Abstract Background: There is great interest in reducing the number of automated complete blood counts requiring manual blood smear reviews without sacrificing the quality of patient care. This study was aimed at evaluating and establishing appropriate screening criteria for manual blood smear reviews to improve the performance in a hematology laboratory. Method: A total of 1977 consecutive samples from the daily workload were used to evaluate four sets of screening criteria for manual blood smear reviews to identify samples with positive smear findings. Three sets of screening criteria were arbitrarily proposed in this study: Group 1 (narrow ranges), Group 2 (intermediate ranges), and Group 3 (wide limits) and one set (Group 4) was adapted from the International Society for Laboratory Hematology. All samples were run on Sysmex hematology analyzers and were investigated using manual blood smear reviews. Diagnostic accuracy and agreement were performed for each set of screening criteria, including an investigation of microscopic review rate and efficiency. Results: The microscopic review rates for Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 73.85%, 54.52%, 46.33% and 46.38%, respectively; the false-negative rates were 0.50%, 1.97%, 2.73% and 3.95%, respectively. The efficiency and negative predictive values of Group 3 were 73.04% and 4.91%, respectively. Conclusions: Group 3 had the best relationship between safety (false-negative rate: ≤3%) and efficiency to estimate the limits of automation in performing complete blood counts. This study strengthens the importance of establishing screening criteria for manual blood smear reviews, which account for the different contexts in which hematological determinations are performed. Each laboratory should optimize the screening criteria for manual blood smear reviews in order to maximize their efficiency and safety.