Automated Counting of Cells in Cerebrospinal Fluid Using the CellDyn-4000 Haematology Analyser

Abstract

Counting of cells in cerebrospinal fluid is currently performed manually. Because of the inherent analytical and economical disadvantages, we attempted to introduce a fully automated method. Therefore, we validated the Abbott CellDyn-4000 haematology analyser for counting cells in cerebrospinal fluid. The analyser was used in its standard configuration with the simple precaution of a preceding blank sample. As for leukocyte counting the analyser yielded high precision (CV approximately 5% above the upper reference limit), good linearity, low limit of detection (2/microl) and excellent correlation (r > 0.99) with the counting chamber method. The differential leukocyte count was equally accurate and precise, even in the low concentration range. Performance of the erythrocyte count was impaired by its high limit of detection (6/nl) and it appeared satisfactory only for detecting blood admixture due to traumatic puncture. The specificity of the analyser is excellent, since it correctly classified non-viable leukocytes and excluded yeast cells from the leukocyte count in a patient with cryptococcal meningitis. We conclude that the CellDyn-4000 is well suited for quickly and reliably counting leukocytes in cerebrospinal fluid. Developing some software modifications might make the analyser useful also for performing erythrocyte counting in cerebrospinal fluid.

Comparative Evaluation of the Iris iQ200 Body Fluid Module With Manual Hemacytometer Count

“…However, other studies indicate that CSF samples with hemacytometer nucleated counts in the reference range of 0 to 5/µL yielded CVs between 18% and 56%. 9,10 The other CSF sample with a higher RBC count (mean, 342/µL) and nucleated cell count (mean, 44/µL) resulted in lower CVs of 18.0% and 21.7%, respectively. The same is true for the body fluid sample assayed 12 times with a mean RBC count of 188/µL and nucleated cell count of 63/µL and CVs of 16.6% and 30.4%, respectively.…”

Automated vs. manual cerebrospinal fluid cell counts: a work and cost analysis comparing the Sysmex XE-5000 and the Fuchs-Rosenthal manual counting chamber

“…Indeed, results should ideally be generated within a few minutes at a 24‐h basis. Using manual counting chambers for microscopic cell quantification of CSF is labour‐intensive, time‐consuming, requires well‐trained laboratory staff and lacks precision owing to a substantial degree of intra‐ and interoperator variability, and the small number of total cells counted (Hoffmann & Janssen, 2002; Aulesa et al. , 2003; Aune et al.…”

“…Until today, CSF cell counts have been traditionally performed using manual microscopy (e.g. with a Fuchs–Rosenthal counting chamber), a technique which is not only time‐consuming but also labour‐intensive and requires experienced laboratory staff around the clock if CSF analysis is offered on a 24‐h basis (Hoffmann & Janssen, 2002; Aulesa et al. , 2003; Aune et al.…”

“…Furthermore, this analytical procedure has a high intra‐ and interoperator variability and does not supply any additional information on the predominant cell type (Aune & Sandberg, 2000). Recently, different automated blood cell counters (Hoffmann & Janssen, 2002; Aulesa et al. , 2003; Aune et al.…”

Evaluation of Mindray BC-6800 body fluid mode for automated cerebrospinal fluid cell counting

“…Cells can be easily detected by modern hematology analyzers used for common routine analysis of peripheral blood samples. The BC-6800 is equipped with a dedicated platform for body fluid (BF) examination, like other hematology analyzer [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. More recently CSF analysis has been performed even on automated urine flow cytometers [23][24][25][26] and urine microscopy analyzers [27,28].…”