Rapid complete blood count and C-reactive protein determination with the Horiba Microsemi analyzer: the experience in neonatal intensive care unit of Careggi University Hospital.
C-reactive protein
Complete blood count
Hematology analyzer
Microsystem
Newborn
Performance comparison
Journal
European journal of pediatrics
ISSN: 1432-1076
Titre abrégé: Eur J Pediatr
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 7603873
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Aug 2024
15 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
23
05
2024
accepted:
18
07
2024
revised:
12
07
2024
medline:
15
8
2024
pubmed:
15
8
2024
entrez:
14
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Microsystems represent an alternative but proficient approach of analysis outside the laboratory, and their use could help in reducing the impact of pre-analytical errors, in particular in challenging newborn samples. The study purpose is to compare the Horiba Microsemi CRP LC-767G system for rapid 3-part complete blood count (CBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) determination with the laboratory reference systems (respectively Sysmex XN-9100™ and Roche Cobas® c702) in samples of adult patients and newborns hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) samples. The comparison between the analyzers was performed through Passing-Bablok regression analysis and Bland-Altman plot. One hundred eighty-three blood samples were analyzed. The regression analysis results, performed in the newborn (n = 70) and in adult (n = 113) populations, showed a good agreement between the instruments. The evaluation of the Bland-Altman plots showed comparable values of bias < 10% for most of the parameters, but not for MPV, lymphocyte, and monocyte count. The comparison between the Microsemi CRP LC-767G system and the laboratory instrumentations demonstrated comparable results. The Microsemi CRP LC-767G system provides reliable analytical data and faster turnaround time, particularly useful in NICU. • Microsystems for point-of-care testing (POCT) represent an alternative but proficient approach of analysis outside the laboratory, in order to perform a rapid, safe, and exhaustive evaluation for critical patients' management, acting as a valid support for treatment in acute care. • The Microsemi CRP LC-767G system can represent an alternative but effective testing approach outside the laboratory, particularly in NICU, to reduce the impact of pre-analytical errors on newborn samples.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39143348
doi: 10.1007/s00431-024-05695-0
pii: 10.1007/s00431-024-05695-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
ISO 15189:2022 - Medical laboratories - requirements for quality and competence (2022) https://www.iso.org/standard/76677.html
Manucha V, Rusia U, Sikka M, Faridi MM, Madan N (2002) Utility of haematological parameters and C-reactive protein in the detection of neonatal sepsis. J Paediatr Child Health 38(5):459–464
doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1754.2002.00018.x
pubmed: 12354261
Meraj F, Shaikh S, Maqsood S, Kanani F, Khan H, Jamal S (2023) Monocyte distribution width, a novel biomarker for early sepsis screening and comparison with procalcitonin and C-reactive protein. J Lab Physicians 15(2):294–299
doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1758666
pubmed: 37323592
pmcid: 10264128
Harnik E, Moreiras J (2014) Blood-taking procedures in children. Br J Hosp Med 75(9):C130–C132
doi: 10.12968/hmed.2014.75.9.C130
Giavarina D, Lippi G (2017) Blood venous sample collection: recommendations overview and a checklist to improve quality. Clin Biochem 50(10–11):568–573
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.02.021
pubmed: 28242283
Carraro P, Plebani M (2007) Errors in a stat laboratory: types and frequencies 10 years later. Clin Chem 53(7):1338–1342
doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2007.088344
pubmed: 17525103
Lippi G, Chance JJ, Church S, Dazzi P, Fontana R, Giavarina D, Simundic AM (2011) Preanalytical quality improvement: from dream to reality. Clin Chem Lab Med 49(7):1113–1126
doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2011.600
pubmed: 21517699
Bahar B, Tuncel AF, Holmes EW, Holmes DT (2017) An interactive website for analytical method comparison and bias estimation. Clinical biochemistry 50(18):1025–9
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.08.008
pubmed: 28823761
Vidali M, Tronchin M, Dittadi R, Gruppo di Studio SIBioC - Medicina di Laboratorio (2016) Protocollo per la comparazione di due metodi analitici di laboratorio. Biochimica Clinica 40(2):129–142
Shaw JLV (2015) Practical challenges related to point of care testing. Pract Lab Med 9(4):22–29
Cambridge T (2022) The future of point of care testing. Healthcare Transformers. https://healthcaretransformers.com/healthcare-business/strategy-and-operations/future-of-point-of-care-testing/
Oliver P, Fernandez-Calle P, Buno A (2021) POCT accreditation ISO 15189 and ISO 22870: making the point. EJIFCC 32(2):131–139
pubmed: 34421481
pmcid: 8343036
Rampoldi E, Patrucco G, Casati M, Morelli B, Carraro P, Gruppo di Studio Point of Care Testing (POCT) (2021) Principi per l’implementazione e la gestione del point-of-care-testing (POCT): indicazioni essenziali. Biochimica Clinica 45(3):312–326