BACKGROUND: The detection of irregular antibody is a critical issue in the management of red blood cell transfusion according to the Type & Screen (T&S) practice. In order to implement the T&S procedure at our blood bank, we compared three different automated analyzers based on column agglutination technique (CAT) or solid phase red cell adherence assay (SPACA) methods. METHODS: Pre-transfusion antibody screening was performed in 986 patients candidate to elective surgery at low risk for red blood cell transfusion. We tested the following kits: the three-cell panel micro-CAT system ID-DiaCell I-II-III (DiaMed), the four-cell panel solid-phase system Capture-R Ready Screen-4 (Immucor), and the four-cell panel micro-CAT system Serascan Diana-4 (Grifols). Positive results were further investigated using corresponding identification panels, and discrepant results were investigated with all the antibody identification systems. RESULTS: Among 986 samples, we observed 967 concordant negative results (98.1%), 8 concordant positive results (0.8% of cases), and 11 discrepant results (1.1%). Among discrepant samples, an alloantibody could been identified in two patents (anti-M, detected by Serascan Diana-4 and ID-DiaCell I, II, III; anti-Kpa, detected by Capture-R Ready Screen-4 and Serascan Diana-4). CONCLUSION: Among the evaluated technologies, the four-cell panel micro-CAT system displayed the highest sensitivity and specificity with an optimal negative predictive value. These features might be relevant to the routine implementation of the T&S transfusion strategy.
BACKGROUND: The detection of irregular antibody is a critical issue in the management of red blood cell transfusion according to the Type & Screen (T&S) practice. In order to implement the T&S procedure at our blood bank, we compared three different automated analyzers based on column agglutination technique (CAT) or solid phase red cell adherence assay (SPACA) methods. METHODS: Pre-transfusion antibody screening was performed in 986 patients candidate to elective surgery at low risk for red blood cell transfusion. We tested the following kits: the three-cell panel micro-CAT system ID-DiaCell I-II-III (DiaMed), the four-cell panel solid-phase system Capture-R Ready Screen-4 (Immucor), and the four-cell panel micro-CAT system Serascan Diana-4 (Grifols). Positive results were further investigated using corresponding identification panels, and discrepant results were investigated with all the antibody identification systems. RESULTS: Among 986 samples, we observed 967 concordant negative results (98.1%), 8 concordant positive results (0.8% of cases), and 11 discrepant results (1.1%). Among discrepant samples, an alloantibody could been identified in two patents (anti-M, detected by Serascan Diana-4 and ID-DiaCell I, II, III; anti-Kpa, detected by Capture-R Ready Screen-4 and Serascan Diana-4). CONCLUSION: Among the evaluated technologies, the four-cell panel micro-CAT system displayed the highest sensitivity and specificity with an optimal negative predictive value. These features might be relevant to the routine implementation of the T&S transfusion strategy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnostic accuracy; Individualized medicine; Predictive assays; Red blood cell alloantibodies; Type & Screen
Authors: Jonas Sawierucha; Marion Posset; Viola Hähnel; Christian L Johnson; James A Hutchinson; Norbert Ahrens Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-31 Impact factor: 3.240