Is anyone using a buffy coat smear to confirm negative thick and thin smears for malaria and other parasites?

I cannot find a reference to do this other than in our procedure.

Never heard of it.  Do infected RBCs migrate with the WBCs when spun down?

 

Scott

Why would you?

The CDC website has excellent info for making and staining smears.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/diagnosticProcedures/index.html

The CDC does have good information and makes no mention of using a buffy coat smear for malaria. I can't figure out why this was required in our procedure but I'll be talking to our pathologist about removing this step.

Agree this practice has no value for MP's - havn't seen in any parctice guidelines.

Only time used this techniques was for Microfilaria screening -but wouldnt do this routinely.

Apparently the use of a buffy coat smear to detect malaria came from a 2011 study that was published in the Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine.   I does state however that a larger and more complete study should be performed before implementing this into common practice. 

Here is the link if you’re interested.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3609286/

It state

 

Apparently the use of a buffy coat smear to detect malaria came from a 2011 study that was published in the Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine.   I does state however that a larger and more complete study should be performed before implementing this into common practice. 

Here is the link if you’re interested.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3609286/

 

It states that there are 36 examined that have been detected by conventional thick films already and the patient is already undergoing treatment. The buffy coat ones are taken after treatment - so assumedly only to detect whether the treatment is complete?

 

I think it is risky to use any form of films to determine completeness of the treatment as it may be that the malaria has gone into hepatic cells and is no longer circulating.

 

It definitely shouldn't be used as a primary diagnostic tool IMO.

It state

 

 

It states that there are 36 examined that have been detected by conventional thick films already and the patient is already undergoing treatment. The buffy coat ones are taken after treatment - so assumedly only to detect whether the treatment is complete?

 

I think it is risky to use any form of films to determine completeness of the treatment as it may be that the malaria has gone into hepatic cells and is no longer circulating.

 

It definitely shouldn't be used as a primary diagnostic tool IMO.

 

My novice interpretation of this article:

Their test was to see if they could identify parasites in the buffy coat that they didn't see in a thick film, in patients they thought it should be possible due to previous thick film identifications.

And yes, they did in ~27% of cases.

Their recommendation was for add'l studies due to low sample size but that it might be a useful tool to consider to prevent false negatives.

My novice interpretation of this article:

Their test was to see if they could identify parasites in the buffy coat that they didn't see in a thick film, in patients they thought it should be possible due to previous thick film identifications.

And yes, they did in ~27% of cases.

Their recommendation was for add'l studies due to low sample size but that it might be a useful tool to consider to prevent false negatives.

 

The initial slides were positive and the susequent slides were negative. What I was trying to say was neither method should be used to determine efficacy of treatment due to the latent phase of treatment. And it certainly shouldn't be used as a primary diagnostic tool.