Perbandingan Dua Metode Pemeriksaan Platelet Automated Hematology Analyzer pada Pasien Trombositopenia

Abstract

Objective: To compare two platelet counting automated hematology analyzer methods (PLT-F & PLT-O) in thrombocytopenic samples Methods: This study is a diagnostic-cross sectional study at H. Adam Malik General Hospital Medan, Indonesia (May – December 2022). We included 157 thrombocytopenic blood samples (K2-EDTA, thrombocyte count < 150.000 /μL) from 114 patients. Platelet counts of optical-fluorescence flowcytometry / PLT-O (Mindray BC-760, Shenzen, China) was compared to fluorescence flowcytometry method / PLT-F (Sysmex XN-1000, Kobe, Japan). Bland-Altmann Plot and linear regression test was used as analysis of method comparison (significant p < 0,05). Results: Non-malignancy (60.5%) and hematologic disorders (62.3%) were the most common etiology of thrombocytopenia. Median platelet count of PLT-F (56,000 /μL [1,000 – 146,000]) and PLT-O (57,000 /μL [1,000 – 206,000]) were not different (p = 0.963). Both platelet counting methods were in agreement significantly and there was no proportion bias found in this study (Mean difference -828.02; SD 11,939.98; Upper LoA 21,504.18; Lower LoA -23,160.20; B -0.40; p = 0.05). Platelet counting flagging report of PLT-F and PLT-O were in agreement significantly (p < 0.05) with minimal agreement in platelet clumping (κ = 0,264), moderate agreement in abnormal platelet histogram and erythrocyte microcytosis (κ = 0,651; κ = 0,793), and weak agreement in erythrocyte fragments (κ = 0,483). Conclusion: Both platelet counting automated hematology analyzer methods in thrombocytopenic sample were significantly in agreement, however there was a higher trends in platelet counts of PLT-O method compared to PLT-F method in this study.