Gómez-Gaviño V, Jiménez-López C, Vivar-Guzmán NP, Sánchez-Rodríguez MA

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 51-58
PDF size: 103.58 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Usually, the microscopic analysis of urine sediment is performed manually, by a conventional or standardized method, but it is a tiring, intensive and imprecise procedure. The Sysmex UF-100i is an automated analyzer that performs a microscopic urinalysis by flow cytometry. Objectives: To determinate the precision of UF-100i using urine commercial controls, different controls from the ones provided by the manufacturer; and to evaluate the agreement and correlation for erythrocytes and leukocytes counts between the flow cytometer and conventional, standardized (Kova) or dipstick methods, with patients samples. Methodology: Precision: Kova-trol I and II was used. We performed 27 repetitions of each urine control for each method, as routinely practiced. Agreement: we studied 254 freshly collected urine samples and routine urinalysis was performed. The urine sediments were analyzed by conventional, Kova and by automated methods. Results: Precision: UF-100i showed a coefficient of variation lowest than the other methods in both types of blood cells and control level. The correlation coefficient for erythrocytes count between Kova and UF-100i was r = 0.950 (p ‹ 0.0001), and for leukocytes count r = 0.742 (p ‹ 0.0001). Clinic samples: Uf-100i and Kova correlations were: leukocytes, r = 0.914 (p ‹ 0.0001) and erythrocytes, r = 0.758 (p ‹ 0.0001). Conclusion: It is possible to use urine commercial controls as an internal quality control for UF-100i analyzer. This analyzer can perform accurate and precise quantification of urinary erythrocytes and leukocytes.

REFERENCES

1. Lun A, Ziebig R, Priem F, Filler G, Sinha P. Routine workflow for use of urine strips and urine flow cytometer UF-100 in the hospital laboratory. Clin Chem. 1999; 45: 1305-7.

2. Diario Oficial de la Federación. NOM-166-SSA1-1997. Para la organización y funcionamiento de los laboratorios clínicos. Jueves 13 de enero del 2000.

3. Ravinovitch A, Sarewitz SJ, Woodcock SM, Allinger DB, Azar M, Dynek PA, et al. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Urinalysis and collection, transportation, and preservation of urine specimens; approved guideline. NCCLS Document 2000; 21(19).

4. Winkel P, Statland BE, Jorgenson J. Urine microscopy: an ill-defined method examined by a multifactorial technique. Clin Chem. 1974; 20: 436-9.

5. Ozdem S, Bayraktar T, Oktay C, Sari R, Gültekin M. The prevalence of asymptomatic pyuria in diabetic patients: comparison of the Sysmex UF-100 automated urinalysis analyzer with Fuchs-Rosenthal hemacytometer. Clin Biochem. 2006; 39: 873-8.

6. Okada H, Sarai Y, Kawabata G, Fujisana M, Arakawa S, Hamaguchi Y, et al. Evaluation of the Sysmex UF-50. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001; 115: 605-10.

7. Castillo de Sánchez ML, Fonseca Yerena ME [Eds]. Mejoría continua de la calidad. Guía para los laboratorios de América Latina. México: Médica Panamericana; 1998. p. 53-70.

8. Dimech W, Roney K. Evaluation of an automated urinalysis system for testing urine chemistry, microscopy and culture. Pathology. 2002; 34: 170-7.

9. Wah DT, Wises PK, Butch AW. Analytic performance of the iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer and comparison with manual counts using Fushs-Rosenthal cell chambers. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005; 123: 290-6.

10. Lamchiagdhase P, Preechaborisutkul K, Lomsomboon P, Srisuchart P, Tantiniti P, Khan-u-ra N, et al. Urine sediment examination: a comparison between the manual method and the iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer. Clin Chim Acta. 2005; 358: 167-74.

11. Delamghe JR, Kouri TT, Huber AR, Hannemann-Pohl K, Guder WG, Lun A, et al. The role of automated urine particle flow cytometry in clinical practice. Clin Chim Acta. 2000; 301: 1-18.

12. Ottiger C, Huber AR. Quantitative urine particle analysis: integrative approach for the optimal combination of automation with UF-100 and microscopic review with Kova cell chamber. Clin Chem. 2003; 49: 617-23.

13. Sutheesophon K, Wiwanitkit V, Boonchalermvichian C, Charuruks N. Evaluation of Sysmex UF-100 automated urianalysis analyzer and comparative study with JCCLS reference method. J Med Assoc Thai. 2002; 85(Suppl 1): S246-52.

14. Scharnhorst V, Gerlag PG, Nanlohy Manuhutu ML, van der Graaf F. Urine flow cytometry and detection of glomerular hematuria. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2006; 44: 1330-4.

15. Ben-Ezra J, Bork L, McPherson RA. Evaluation of the Sysmex UF-100 automated urinalysis analyzer. Clin Chem. 1998; 44: 92-5.

16. Siegel S, Castellan NJ. Estadística no paramétrica. Aplicada a las ciencias de la conducta. 3a Ed. México: Trillas; 1995. p. 333-41.

17. Carlson DE, Statland BE. Automated urinalysis. Clin Chem Lab Med. 1988; 8: 449-61.

18. Fenili D, Pirovano B. The automation of sediment urinalysis using a new urine flow cytometer (UF-100TM). Clin Chem Lab Med. 1998; 36: 909-17.

19. Jiménez-López C, Hernández-González A, Sánchez-Rodríguez M, Cabrera-Aguilar A, Rivas-Contreras E. Inconvenientes del método manual para la lectura del sedimento urinario. Bioquimia. 2006; 31(Supl 1): 110.

20. Koken T, Aktepe OC, Serteser M, Samli M, Kahraman A. Determination of cut-off values for leucocytes and bacteria for urine flow cytometer (UF-100) in urinary tract infections. Int Urol Nephrol. 2002; 34: 175-8.

21. Langlois MR, Delanghe JR, Steyaert SR, Everaert KC, De Buyzere ML. Automated flow cytometry compared with an automated dipstick reader for urinalysis. Clin Chem. 1999; 45: 118-22.

22. Simerville JA, Maxted WC, Pahira JJ. Urianalysis: a comprehensive review. Am Fam Physician. 2005; 71: 1153-62.

23. Regeniter A, Haenni V, Risch L, Kochli HP, Colombo JP, Frei R, et al. Urine analysis performed by flow cytometry: reference range determination and comparison to morphological findings, dipstick chemistry and bacterial culture results-a multicenter study. Clin Nephrol. 2001; 55: 384-92.