Keçilerde Total ve Diferansiyel Lökosit Sayımlarında Otomatik Kan Analizörü ve Manuel Periferik Yayma Yöntemi Sonuçlarının Karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Abacus Vet 5 (AV5), keçilerde toplam ve 3 parçalı diferansiyel (lenfositler, nötrofiller ve monositler) lökosit (WBC) sayısı sunan hacimsel empedans tabanlı otomatik bir hematoloji analizörüdür. Bu çalışmada, keçilerde AV5 hematoloji analizörü ile ölçülen toplam ve diferansiyel lökosit sayılarının (mutlak ve bağıl), kan yaymalarından manuel yöntemle elde edilen sonuçlarla karşılaştırılması amaçlandı. Ayrıca iki yöntemin uyumluluğunun karşılaştırılması da amaçlanmaktadır. Kırk kıl keçisinin (9 sağlıklı ve 31 hasta) kan örnekleri her iki yöntemle de analiz edildi. Değerler arasındaki ilişkiler korelasyon katsayısı ile, yöntemler arasındaki uyumlar ise Bland-Altman yöntemi ile değerlendirildi. İki yöntem arasındaki korelasyon, toplam WBC sayıları (rho = 0.963, p = 0.000), mutlak nötrofiller (rho = 0.964, p = 0.000) ve lenfositler (rho = 0.928, p = 0.000) için çok iyi, nötrofil yüzdeleri için iyi (rho = 0.824, p = 0.000) ve mutlak monositler için zayıftı (rho = 0.426, p = 0.006). Lenfosit (% -8,25) ve nötrofil (%10,02) yüzdeleri için yanlılık göreceli olarak önemli ve güven aralıkları geniş olmasına rağmen, Bland-Altman yönteminde iki yöntem arasında tüm parametreler için uyum kabul edilebilirdi. Sonuç olarak, AV5 hematoloji analizörü keçilerde toplam ve diferansiyel WBC sayıları için iyi performans göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte, anormal sonuçlar yine de bir kan frotisi incelemesi ile doğrulanmalıdır.

Keywords

• hematoloji analiz cihazı
• kan frotisi
• keçi
• lökosit
• manuel yöntem

Comparison of the Results of Automatic Blood Analyser and Manual Peripheral Smear Method in Total and Differential Leukocyte Count in Goats

Abstract

The Abacus Vet 5 (AV5) is a volumetric impedance-based automated haematology analyser that offers a total and 3-part differential (lymphocytes, neutrophils and monocytes) white blood cell (WBC) count in goats. This study aimed to compare the total and differential leukocyte counts (absolute and relative) measured with the AV5 haematology analyser with the results obtained by the manual method from blood smears in goats. It is also aimed to compare the compatibility between the two methods. The blood samples of 40 hair goats (9 healthy and 31 diseased) were analysed by both methods. The relationships between the values were evaluated with a correlation coefficient, and the agreements between the methods were assessed with the Bland-Altman method. The correlation between two methods were excellent for total WBC counts (rho = 0.963, p = 0.000), absolute neutrophils (rho = 0.964, p = 0.000), lymphocytes (rho = 0.928, p = 0.000), a good for the neutrophil percentages (rho = 0.824, p = 0.000), and a weak for absolute monocytes (rho = 0.426, p = 0.006). Although the bias for lymphocyte (−8.25 %) and neutrophil (10.02 %) percentages was relatively significant and the confidence intervals were wide, the agreement for all parameters was acceptable between the two methods in the Bland atman method. In conclusion, the AV5 haematology analyser performed well for total, and differential WBCs counts in goats. However, abnormal results should still be confirmed by a blood smear examination. In addition, instrument performance evaluations, including increased sample sizes, should be performed in further studies.

Keywords

• blood smear
• goat
• haematology analyser
• manual method
• white blood cell

References

1. Arnold JE, Camus MS, Freeman KP, Giori L, Hooijberg EH, Jeffery U, Korchia J, Meindel MJ, Moore AR, Sisson SC, Vap LM, Cook JR, 2019: ASVCP guidelines: principles of quality assurance and standards for Veterinary Clinical Pathology (version 3.0). Vet Clin Pathol, 48 (4), 542-18.
2. Bellwood B, Andrasik-Catton M, 2013: Veterinary Technician's Handbook of Laboratory Procedures. 1st ed., Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, New York, USA. Bilić-Zulle L, 2011: Comparison of methods: Passing and Bablok regression. Biochem Med, 21 (1), 49-52.
3. Bland JM, Altman DG, 1986: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1 (8476), 307-310.
4. Chhapola V, Kanwal SK, Brar R, 2015: Reporting standards for Bland-Altman agreement analysis in laboratory research: a cross-sectional survey of current practice. Ann Clin Biochem, 52 (3), 382-6.
5. Chung J, Ou X, Kulkarni RP, Yang C, 2015: Counting White Blood Cells from a Blood Smear Using Fourier Ptychographic Microscopy. PLoS One, 10 (7), e0133489.
6. Giavarina D, 2015: Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med, 25 (2),141-51.
7. Harvey J (2001). Leukocyte evaluation In: Atlas of Veterinary Hematology: Blood and Bone Marrow of Domestic Animals. Harvey J (Ed), 24-26, Saunders Company, Philadelphia.
8. Kjelgaard-Hansen M, Jensen AL, 2006: Is the inherent imprecision of manual leukocyte differential counts acceptable for quantitative purposes? Vet Clin Pathol, 35 (3), 268-270.

9. Jones ML, Allison RW 2007: Evaluation of the ruminant complete blood cell count. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract, 23 (3), 377-402.
10. Katsogiannou EG, Athanasiou LV, Katsoulos PD, Polizopoulou ZS, Tzivara A, Christodoulopoulos G, 2020: Estimation of white blood cell and platelet counts in ovine blood smears, and a comparison with the ADVIA 120 hematology analyzer. Vet Clin Pathol, 49, 222-226.
11. Megahed AA, Hiew MWH, Grünberg W, Constable PD, 2016: Evaluation of 2 portable ion-selective electrode meters for determining whole blood, plasma, urine, milk, and abomasal fluid potassium concentrations in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci, 99 (9), 7330-7343.
12. Mehain SO, Haines JM, Lee PM, 2019: Platelet indices as biomarkers for characterisation and determination of severity in canine chronic enteropathy. Vet J, 248, 37-41.
13. Oikonomidis IL, Brozos C, Kiossis E, Tsouloufi TK, Kritsepi-Konstantinou M, 2021: A comparison study between the results of the Siemens ADVIA 120 analyzer and the manual method for differential leukocyte counts in sheep. Vet Clin Pathol, 50, 203-208.
14. Özen D, 2018: Ölçüm teknikleri arasındaki uyumun belirlenmesinde kullanılan grafiksel yöntemlerin ve regresyon modellerinin bir uygulama ile incelenmesi. Eurasian J Vet Sci, 34 (4), 265-271.
15. Petanides TA, Mylonakis ME, Koutinas AF, 2004: Evaluating the leukogram in the dog and cat. J Hellenic Vet Med Soc, 55, 130-135.
16. Putzu L, Di Ruberto C, 2013: White blood cells identification and counting from microscopic blood image. Int. J. Pharm. Biomed. Res, 7 (1), 15-22.
17. Rejec A, Butinar J, Gawor J, Petelin M, 2017: Evaluation of Complete Blood Count Indices (NLR, PLR, MPV/PLT, and PLCRi) in Healthy Dogs, Dogs With Periodontitis, and Dogs With Oropharyngeal Tumors as Potential Biomarkers of Systemic Inflammatory Response. J Vet Dent, 34 (4), 231-240.
18. Rümke SL (1977). The statistically expected variability in differential leukocyte counting. In: Differential Leukocyte Counting, Koepke JA (Ed), 39-45, College of American Pathologists, Aspen, USA.
19. Simundic AM, 2012: Practical recommendations for statistical analysis and data presentation in Biochemia Medica journal. Biochem. Med, 22 (1), 15-23. Stirn M, Moritz A, Bauer N, 2014: Rate of manual leukocyte differentials in dog, cat and horse blood samples using ADVIA 120 cytograms. BMC Vet Res, 10, 125.
20. Van Stralen KJ, Jager KJ, Zoccali C, Dekker FW, 2008: Agreement between methods. Kidney Int, 74 (9), 1116-1120.
21. Weiss DJ, Wardrop KJ, 2010: Schalm’s Veterinary Hematology, 6th ed., Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, New York, USA.
22. Westgard JO, 2010: The Comparison of Methods Experiment. http://www.westgard.com/lesson23.htm#10, Erişim tarihi; 18.11.2019.
23. Willard DM, Tvedten H, 2012: Small Animal Clinical Diagnosis by Laboratory Methods. 5th ed., Elsevier, USA.