Crossover study of three methods for low-level white blood cell counting on two types of flow cytometer.

BACKGROUND: Flow cytometric methods were previously shown to be preferable to microscopic and volumetric methods for counting residual white blood cells (WBCs). In this study, three flow cytometric, low-level WBC counting methods were cross compared using two flow cytometers. METHODS: Double-filtered red cell and platelet concentrates were spiked with different amounts of WBC to obtain panels of unspiked and 0.3, 1.0, 3.3, and 10.0 WBC/microl. The methods of BD Biosciences (BDB), Beckman-Coulter (BC), and an in-house method were performed on flow cytometers from BDB and BC. Samples were measured in ninefold. We required that (a) r(2) be at least 0.98 (linearity), (b) at least 80% of observations fell within 20% of expected values (accuracy), and (c) the coefficients of variation be at least 20% (precision) for samples containing at least 3.3 WBC/microl. RESULTS: For the red cell panel, our requirements were met by the BDB method on both flow cytometers and by the BC and in-house methods on the BDB flow cytometer only. For the platelet panel, our requirements were met on all combinations of methods and flow cytometers, except for the in-house method on the BDB flow cytometer. Intra-assay variation was lowest for the BDB method, irrespective of the type of flow cytometer used. CONCLUSION: Based on accuracy and precision, the BDB method on the BDB flow cytometer produced the best results for counting low-level WBCs.

Comparison of five platforms for enumeration of residual leucocytes in leucoreduced blood components.

The need for quality control of leucoreduction of blood products has led to the development of various methods to count low levels of residual leucocytes. We compared five platforms side-by-side: the Nageotte haemocytometer and four based on fluorescent staining of nuclei: two flowcytometers (Beckman Coulter, BD Biosciences) with methods based on counting beads, a volumetric flow cytometer (Partec) and the microvolumic fluorimeter ImagN2000 (BD Biosciences), all according to their manufacturers' recommended methods. Analysis of double-filtered red cell concentrates (RCCs) and platelet concentrates (PCs), spiked with various numbers of leucocytes, revealed good linearity for all methods over the range of 1.6-32.7 leucocytes/microl, all with r(2) > 0.99. At the rejection level of leucocyte-reduced blood components, i.e. 1 x 10(6) per unit corresponding with approximately 3.3 leucocytes/microl, the Nageotte haemocytometer had low accuracy (0% for RCCs, 56% for PCs), and was relatively imprecise [coefficient of variance (CV) of 34% and 30% respectively]. The Partec flow cytometer gave good results for RCCs (accuracy 67%, CV 22%), but not for PCs (accuracy 0%, CV 25%). The ImagN2000 had an accuracy of 44% for RCCs and 89% for PCs, but the precision was variable (CV 32% for RCCs, 15% for PCs). The best results were obtained with the Beckman Coulter (RCCs: accuracy 86%, CV 13%, PCs: accuracy 67%, CV 16%), and BD Biosciences platforms (RCCs: accuracy 100%, CV 10%; PCs: accuracy 89%, CV 11%). We conclude that, at the rejection level of 1 x 10(6) leucocytes per unit, the widely used Nageotte haemocytometer performs poorly in terms of inaccuracy and imprecision, and that both counting-bead-based, flow cytometric methods performed best.