BACKGROUND: Despite the advances in total laboratory automation, a considerable amount of work in blood banks is still done using outdated manual methods. Some automated pre-transfusion testing instruments have recently been developed. Of these, we evaluated and compared the AutoVue Innova (Ortho, USA) and the Techno TwinStation (DiaMed AG, Switzerland). METHODS: Forward and reverse ABO/Rh typing and unexpected antibody screening and identification tests were performed on 4,628 samples using the manual method and the two automated instruments. Two different anticoagulants (EDTA and citrate) were compared in ABO/Rh typing and unexpected antibody screening tests. Titrating studies were conducted on the following 7 dilutions using 5 samples of irregular antibodies with anti-E, anti-E & -c, anti-D, and anti-Le(a) with anti-Fy(a): 1:2, 1:4, 1:8, 1:16, 1:32, 1:64, and 1:128. The test throughput per hour, the time required to perform 1 and 100 tests, and a simulation test for total events occurring in 1 day were also measured. RESULTS: No erroneous results were reported between the two instruments and the manual method. Discrepancies observed in 10 cases (0.4%) of ABO/Rh typing were of higher intensity with AutoVue Innova than with the manual method. AutoVue Innova exhibited the highest sensitivity in the titrating study and throughput performance compared with the manual method and the Techno TwinStation. Especially in the throughput and time required to complete 100 antibody screening tests, AutoVue Innova had a 3.3- and 3.5-fold higher performance, respectively, than Techno TwinStation. CONCLUSIONS: Because both of the two fully automated instruments (AutoVue Innova and Techno TwinStation) had high levels of accuracy and performance, it is expected that use of fully automated instruments will reduce human labor, turnaround time, and operator error in the blood bank.
BACKGROUND: Despite the advances in total laboratory automation, a considerable amount of work in blood banks is still done using outdated manual methods. Some automated pre-transfusion testing instruments have recently been developed. Of these, we evaluated and compared the AutoVue Innova (Ortho, USA) and the Techno TwinStation (DiaMed AG, Switzerland). METHODS: Forward and reverse ABO/Rh typing and unexpected antibody screening and identification tests were performed on 4,628 samples using the manual method and the two automated instruments. Two different anticoagulants (EDTA and citrate) were compared in ABO/Rh typing and unexpected antibody screening tests. Titrating studies were conducted on the following 7 dilutions using 5 samples of irregular antibodies with anti-E, anti-E & -c, anti-D, and anti-Le(a) with anti-Fy(a): 1:2, 1:4, 1:8, 1:16, 1:32, 1:64, and 1:128. The test throughput per hour, the time required to perform 1 and 100 tests, and a simulation test for total events occurring in 1 day were also measured. RESULTS: No erroneous results were reported between the two instruments and the manual method. Discrepancies observed in 10 cases (0.4%) of ABO/Rh typing were of higher intensity with AutoVue Innova than with the manual method. AutoVue Innova exhibited the highest sensitivity in the titrating study and throughput performance compared with the manual method and the Techno TwinStation. Especially in the throughput and time required to complete 100 antibody screening tests, AutoVue Innova had a 3.3- and 3.5-fold higher performance, respectively, than Techno TwinStation. CONCLUSIONS: Because both of the two fully automated instruments (AutoVue Innova and Techno TwinStation) had high levels of accuracy and performance, it is expected that use of fully automated instruments will reduce humanlabor, turnaround time, and operator error in the blood bank.
Authors: Jeroen J A van Kampen; Andrei Tintu; Henk Russcher; Pieter L A Fraaij; Chantal B E M Reusken; Mikel Rijken; Jaap J van Hellemond; Perry J J van Genderen; Rob Koelewijn; Menno D de Jong; Elaine Haddock; Robert J Fischer; Vincent J Munster; Marion P G Koopmans Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Su Yeon Jo; Ju Mi Lee; Hye Lim Kim; Kyeong Hwa Sin; Hyeon Ji Lee; Chulhun Ludgerus Chang; Hyung Hoi Kim Journal: Ann Lab Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 3.464