부산대학교 도서관

Introduction: Several automated coagulation analyzers are available for laboratory use. In a university hospital central laboratory, we compared four different instruments. The results for global coagulation assays are presented here. Methods: ACL TOP 750 CTS (Instrumentation Laboratory), Atellica COAG 360 (COAG 360), BCS XP (both Siemens Healthineers), and cobas t 711 (Roche Diagnostics) were compared. For inter‐instrument comparison, five basic coagulation parameters were analyzed in 476 patient plasma samples. Additional assessments included precision testing using commercial control samples and plasma pools, analysis time for a defined set of samples, sample capacity testing, minimum required sample volumes, and detection quality for hemolytic, icteric, or lipemic (HIL) interferences. Results: Good concordance between different instruments was evident from Bland–Altman plots and comparison of data from each instrument with the overall median (τ≥0.8). Shortest analysis times were found for BCS XP and COAG 360, COAG 360 revealed highest sample capacity. Observed required sample volumes were broadly in line with manufacturer specifications and varied according to instrument configurations. HIL detection differed between instruments and was best with ACL TOP 750 CTS. Conclusion: The four analyzers showed similarly high levels of concordance, although some variations were apparent. The most significant differences between the instruments were found in analysis times and sample capacity. Analyzer capabilities must be considered when selecting laboratory equipment and defining algorithms for clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]