Jason P Acker1, Ioana M Croteau, Qi-Long Yi. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R8, Canada. jason.acker@blood.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Percentage hemolysis in red cell concentrates (RCC) for transfusion is an indicator of RBC damage. As several factors need to be measured to determine hemolysis, and multiple assays are available for each, the choice of analytical methodology could critically influence results. METHODS: Hemolysis was measured in 48 RCCs every 7 days during storage including expiry (42 days), with supernatant hemoglobin measured using the reference Drabkin's cyanmethemoglobin method and the Harboe spectrophotometric method, total hemoglobin measured using Drabkin's method and 3 automated analyzers (ADVIA 120, CELL-DYN 1700, Coulter AcT), and hematocrit measured using traditional centrifugation and automated analyzers. RESULTS: The choice of method affects hemolysis measurement. Biases ranging from -0.01- -0.03% were observed depending on the combination of methods used. Hematocrit measurement appeared to be a major determinant of bias, and the greatest bias was seen with the ADVIA 120 automated analyzer. Although results did not differ by a level thought to be of clinical significance, the choice of method will impact quality control pass/fail rates. CONCLUSION: Although guidelines exist in many jurisdictions regarding acceptable hemolysis levels in RCCs, these are silent regarding the methods to be used. The presence of bias highlights the need for standardization of methodology.
BACKGROUND: Percentage hemolysis in red cell concentrates (RCC) for transfusion is an indicator of RBC damage. As several factors need to be measured to determine hemolysis, and multiple assays are available for each, the choice of analytical methodology could critically influence results. METHODS:Hemolysis was measured in 48 RCCs every 7 days during storage including expiry (42 days), with supernatant hemoglobin measured using the reference Drabkin's cyanmethemoglobin method and the Harboe spectrophotometric method, total hemoglobin measured using Drabkin's method and 3 automated analyzers (ADVIA 120, CELL-DYN 1700, Coulter AcT), and hematocrit measured using traditional centrifugation and automated analyzers. RESULTS: The choice of method affects hemolysis measurement. Biases ranging from -0.01- -0.03% were observed depending on the combination of methods used. Hematocrit measurement appeared to be a major determinant of bias, and the greatest bias was seen with the ADVIA 120 automated analyzer. Although results did not differ by a level thought to be of clinical significance, the choice of method will impact quality control pass/fail rates. CONCLUSION: Although guidelines exist in many jurisdictions regarding acceptable hemolysis levels in RCCs, these are silent regarding the methods to be used. The presence of bias highlights the need for standardization of methodology.
Authors: Richard O Francis; Angelo D'Alessandro; Andrew Eisenberger; Mark Soffing; Randy Yeh; Esther Coronel; Arif Sheikh; Francesca Rapido; Francesca La Carpia; Julie A Reisz; Sarah Gehrke; Travis Nemkov; Tiffany Thomas; Joseph Schwartz; Chaitanya Divgi; Debra Kessler; Beth H Shaz; Yelena Ginzburg; James C Zimring; Steven L Spitalnik; Eldad A Hod Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Max Seidy Saito; André Luiz Lourenço; Hye Chung Kang; Carlos Rangel Rodrigues; Lucio Mendes Cabral; Helena Carla Castro; Plínio Cunha Satlher Journal: Int J Exp Pathol Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Kyla M Walter; Caroline E Moore; Rana Bozorgmanesh; K Gary Magdesian; Leslie W Woods; Birgit Puschner Journal: J Vet Diagn Invest Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 1.279