Summary One of the many challenges facing laboratories is the verification of their automated Complete Blood Count cell counters for the enumeration of body fluids. These analyzers offer improved accuracy, precision, and efficiency in performing the enumeration of cells compared with manual methods. A patterns of practice survey was distributed to laboratories that participate in proficiency testing in Ontario, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan to determine the number of laboratories that are testing body fluids on automated analyzers and the performance specifications that were performed. Based on the results of this questionnaire, an International Working Group for the Verification and Performance of Automated Cell Counters for Body Fluids was formed by the International Council for Standardization in Hematology (ICSH) to prepare a set of guidelines to help laboratories plan and execute the verification of their automated cell counters to provide accurate and reliable results for automated body fluid counts. These guidelines were discussed at the ICSH General Assemblies and reviewed by an international panel of experts to achieve further consensus.

No abstract

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis syndrome (HITTS) is an immune-mediated drug reaction that occurs 5-14 d after initiation of heparin therapy and is a potentially life-threatening thrombotic complication. The antibody-heparin-PF4 complexes cause platelet activation and generation of platelet microparticles. The need for anticoagulant treatment in asymptomatic thrombocytopenia is uncertain. However, treatment is warranted in HITTS, as illustrated in the case reported here. Danaparoid, r-Hirudin and argatroban are effective drugs. Danaparoid has a 10-50% in vitro cross-reactivity rate with the HIT antibodies, but has been proven to be clinically efficacious even in these cases. Here, we report a case of in vivo cross-reactivity with danaparoid, the patient showed an excellent recovery with r-Hirudin.

Introduction: These recommendations are intended to develop a consensus in the previously published papers as to which parameters and what values should be considered critical. A practical guide on the standardization of critical results management in haematology laboratories would be beneficial as part of good laboratory and clinical practice and for use by laboratory-accrediting agencies. Methods: A working group with members from Europe, America, Australasia and Asia was formed by International Council for Standardization in Haematology. A pattern of practice survey of 21 questions was distributed in 2014, and the data were collected electronically by Survey Monkey. The mode, or most commonly occurring value, was selected as the threshold for the upper and lower alert limits for critical results reporting. Results: A total of 666 laboratories submitted data to this study and, of these, 499 submitted complete responses. Full blood count critical results alert thresholds, morphology findings that trigger critical result notification, critical results alert list, notification process and maintenance of critical results management protocol are described. This international survey provided a snapshot of the current practice worldwide and has identified the existence of considerable heterogeneity of critical results management. Conclusion: The recommendations in this study represent a consensus of good laboratory practice. They are intended to encourage the implementation of a standardized critical results management protocol in the laboratory.

No abstract