标题：红细胞MCV和RDW对不同方法计数低值血小板的影响

      作者：周静，陈建安，陈丽莉，朱学海，周世添，苏辉明
    (中山大学附属东华医院检验科，广东 东莞 523110)

      卷次： 2016年27卷13期

      【摘要】 目的 探讨红细胞平均体积(MCV)和红细胞分布宽度(RDW)对XN-3000血液分析仪电阻抗法
(PLT-I)和核酸染色法(PLT-F)低值血小板计数的影响。方法 采用Sysmex-XN3000血液分析仪对68例低值血小板
患者(分四组：红细胞MCV≥70 fL、MCV<60 fL、60 fLMCV<70 fL而 RDW<0.2、60 fLMCV<70 fL而 RDW>0.2)
EDTA抗凝血分别用 PLT-I法和 PLT-F法进行血小板计数，同时用Beckman Coulter FC500流式细胞仪（免疫法）
计数，以免疫法为参考方法进行比较分析。结果 PLT-F法、PLT-I法与免疫法的相关系数 r分别为 0.931、
0.808，PLT-F法的相关性明显优于 PLT-I法；当红细胞MCV≥70 fL、60 fL≤MCV<70 fL而 RDW<0.2时，PLT-I
法与免疫法比较血小板计数，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)；当红细胞MCV<60 fL、60 fL≤MCV<70 fL而RDW>
0.2时，PLT-I法与免疫法比较血小板计数，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；不同组在 PLT-F法与免疫法比较差异
均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。 结论 PLT-F法与免疫法有良好的相关性，PLT-I法对低值血小板计数的准确性有较
大影响，当MCV<60 fL或者 60 fL≤MCV<70 fL而RDW>0.2时，血小板应该采用流式细胞仪或PLT-F法检测以获
得更为准确的数据。

      【关键词】 低值血小板；流式细胞仪；电阻抗法；核酸染色法；红细胞平均体积；红细胞分布宽度

      【中图分类号】 R446.11 【文献标识码】 A 【文章编号】 1003—6350（2016）13—2129—03


Analysis of the influence of erythrocyte MCV and RDW on the different counting for low platelet counts.
ZHOU
Jing, CHEN Jian-an, CHEN Li-li, ZHU Xue-hai, ZHOU Shi-tian, SU Hui-ming. Department of Clinical Laboratory,
Donghua Hospital Affiliated to Zhongshan University, Dongguan 523110, Guangdong, CHINA

【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the influence of the mean corpuscular volume (MCV) and red cell distri-
bution width (RDW) on the electrical impedance method, and analyze the accuracy of the two platelet counting methods
of XN-3000 hematology analyzer. Methods The Sysmex-XN3000 hematology analyzer was used to make the platelet
counts for the EDTA anticoagulated blood of 68 low platelet patients (four groups: erythrocyte MCV≥70 fL, MCV<60 fL,
60 fL≤MCV<70 fL and RDW<0.2, 60 fL≤MCV<70 fL and RDW>0.2) by the electrical impedance method (PLT-I)
and the nucleic acid staining method (PLT-F) respectively; meanwhile, the counting by the Beckman Coulter FC500 flow
cytometry (immunoassay) was also taken as a reference method for the analysis. Results The correlation coefficient r
of PLT-F method and PLT-I method were 0.931, and the correlation coefficient r of immunoassay was 0.808. The correla-
tion of PLT-F method obviously better than the PLT-I method. The platelet counting results for Group RBC MCV≥70 fL,
and Group 60 fL≤MCV<70 fL with RDW<0.2 by the methods of PLT-I and immunoassay had no statistically signifi-
·论 著·
6350.2016.13.023