Performance evaluation of the CellaVision DM96 system: WBC differentials by automated digital image analysis supported by an artificial neural network.

We evaluated the CellaVision DM96 (CellaVision AB, Lund, Sweden), an automated digital cell morphology and informatics system for peripheral blood smears. Technologists agreed with 82% of the instrument's preclassifications. Correlation coefficients between final results released from the CellaVision and results obtained by direct microscopy were 0.96 (all neutrophils), 0.94 (lymphocytes), 0.88 (segmented neutrophils), 0.73 (eosinophils), 0.69 (bands), and 0.67 (monocytes). After correction for statistically and clinically insignificant variations, the CellaVision DM96 had 95% sensitivity and 88% specificity for immature myeloid cells. It was 100% sensitive and 94% specific for blasts, and 100% sensitive and 97% specific for unusual WBCs and nucleated RBCs. Advantages of the CellaVision DM96 over direct microscopy include the ability to review slides from a remote location, consultation and quality control on a cell-by-cell basis, and potential labor savings.

Comparison of glass K3EDTA versus plastic K2EDTA blood-drawing tubes for complete blood counts, reticulocyte counts, and white blood cell differentials.

Blood-drawing tubes made from plastic containing K2EDTA as an anticoagulant are gaining widespread use in clinical hematology. We compared complete blood count parameters, reticulocyte counts, white blood cell differentials, and flagging rates obtained with Becton Dickinson Vacutainer K3EDTA glass tubes and Vacutainer K2EDTA Plus plastic tubes and found only slight discrepancies in the results obtained with the two tube types. Although some parameter values obtained with K3EDTA glass tubes were significantly lower than those obtained with K2EDTA plastic tubes, many of these differences could be explained by the known effects of the liquid K3EDTA anticoagulant. Flagging rates on an automated cell counter were identical for the two tube types. We conclude that the differences between results obtained with K3EDTA glass tubes versus K2EDTA plastic tubes are minimal and unlikely to be of any clinical significance.