Veterinary Clinical Pathology
0275-6382
1939-165X
Mỹ
Cơ quản chủ quản: Wiley-Blackwell , WILEY
Các bài báo tiêu biểu
Most automated hematology analyzers cannot detect canine or feline basophils. However, many veterinary laboratories continue to report basophils as part of the automated 5‐part differential leukocyte count for dogs and cats.
The study objectives were to evaluate the performance of the
One or more of the 3 hematology analyzers was used to analyze 11 canine blood samples with prominent basophilia (≥ 5%) based on a manual differential count. In addition, samples from 2 cats and 4 rabbits with basophilia were analyzed with the
Canine basophils were not detected by the
Canine basophils were not detected by these automated hematology analyzers, and careful analysis of instrument graphical displays or increased
The differential leukocyte counts performed by an automated hematology analyzer, the Technicon H‐1E Hematology System, and traditional microscopic method (M‐Diff) from blood samples of 129 horses, 40 cattle, and 140 cats were compared. The comparison was repeated after selected subsets of data were created by deleting samples with certain patterns suggesting error with the automated differential cell count (A‐Diff). The two methods had good comparison of results for neutrophils and lymphocytes in all three species. Results for equine monocytes correlated moderately well between the two methods and the correlation improved in the selected data set. Monocyte results did not compare well for the bovine and feline samples. The A‐Diff for feline eosinophils was inaccurate. The A‐Diff may be accurate for bovine and equine eosinophils but too few examples of eosinophilia were present in the sample set to prove this. Basophils were too rarely seen in cattle and horses to validate A‐Diff accuracy, but basophilia identified by the M‐Diff in a cat was not identified by the A‐Diff.
An automated, multi‐channel blood cell counting system (S‐Plus) was compared to a reference counting system using blood samples from 187 animals of four species. The standard red cell bath aperture current of 150 volts (V) was used during analysis of 75% of the samples. At this setting, all samples with a Mean Corpuscular Volume (MCV) greater than 50 fl had accurate erythrocyte counts. As the MCV decreased below 50 fl, the severity of false low erythrocyte counts and false high MCV values increased. The remaining 25% of samples were analyzed with the red cell bath aperture current increased to 200 V. At this setting, only 5% or less of erythrocytes from animals with normal MCV values (>36 fl) were below the erythrocyte threshold. The red cell distribution width values provided by the S‐Plus indicated that equine and bovine erythrocytes have greater anisocytosis than canine and feline erythrocytes. Leukocyte counts were significantly lower on the S‐Plus (p < 0.01). Canine and equine samples most frequently had platelet size distribution within the S‐Plus platelet counting threshold window. Electronic whole blood platelet counting appeared unsatisfactory in cats due to large platelet size and erythrocyte‐platelet size overlap. Small platelet size in cattle indicated that further modifications of the red cell bath aperture current would be required to count and size platelets in this species. Following electronic modifications, this state‐of‐the‐art system appears adaptable to hematologic profiling in most species.
Four automated blood cell counting systems were evaluated at the Michigan State University Veterinary Clinical Center (VCC) for their suitability for analyzing various animals' blood in a university teaching hospital laboratory. The instruments were compared to a Coulter Model S‐Senior (Coulter Electronics) which had been used for 8 years, and was to be replaced. The instruments were a Coulter Model S‐Plus IV, an Ortho ELT‐8/ds (Ortho Diagnostics Systems), a Technicon H‐1 (Technicon Instruments), and a Sysmex E‐5,000 (Toa Medical Electronics). Additionally, an Ortho ELT‐8/ws at a private laboratory (Cenvet) was compared to the Coulter S—Senior at the VCC.
Based on these evaluations, only the Sysmex E‐5,000 was considered unacceptable for the VCC laboratory. Certain advantages and disadvantages of the instruments are described in this article. The comparisons a‐mong instruments were not as consistent or repetitive as expected for a controlled experiment but did provide information likely useful to others considering using or purchasing an automated blood cell counting system for a veterinary laboratory.
A marked decrease in thrombocyte count was observed between subsequent measurements of the same
The objective was to evaluate the impact of several preanalytic variables on thrombocyte counts in minipigs, in order to improve understanding of the in vitro thrombocyte decrease observed.
Hematology blood samples from male and female Göttingen minipigs were collected using
In
Study results provide evidence for an anticoagulant‐dependent pseudothrombocytopenia in minipigs progressing over time and depending on the storage temperature of the blood sample. It is therefore recommended to perform thrombocyte counts as soon as possible after blood collection, and in case of low counts, investigate for the presence of artifactual platelet clumping.