Evaluation of a new automated instrument for pretransfusion testing
| Autor: | A. Parravicini, Paolo Rebulla, L. M. Maffei, G. Sirchia, F. Morelati, C. Santoro, M. Poretti, Nicoletta Revelli, R. Cole |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2003 |
| Předmět: |
On column
medicine.medical_specialty Sample (material) Immunology ABO Blood-Group System Random Allocation ABO blood group system medicine Humans Immunology and Allergy Rh-Hr Blood-Group System business.industry Technician Genetic Variation Hemagglutination Tests Hematology Surgery Technical performance Agglutination (biology) Evaluation Studies as Topic Immunization Sample collection business Nuclear medicine Antibody screening Software |
| Zdroj: | Transfusion. 38:959-965 |
| ISSN: | 0041-1132 |
| DOI: | 10.1046/j.1537-2995.1998.381098440861.x |
| Popis: | BACKGROUND: A number of automated devices for pretransfusion testing have recently become available. This study evaluated a fully automated device based on column agglutination technology (AutoVue System, Ortho, Raritan, NJ). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Some 6747 tests including forward and reverse ABO group, Rh type and phenotype, antibody screen, autocontrol, and crossmatch were performed on random samples from 1069 blood donors, 2063 patients, and 98 newborns and cord blood. Also tested were samples from 168 immunized patients and 53 donors expressing weak or variant A and D antigens. Test results and technician times required for their performance were compared with those obtained by standard methods (manual column agglutination technology, slide, semiautomatic handler). RESULTS: No erroneous conclusions were found in regard to the 5028 ABO group and Rh type or phenotype determinations carried out with the device. The device rejected 1.53 percent of tests for sample inadequacy. Of the remaining 18 tests with discrepant results found with the device and not confirmed with the standard methods, 6 gave such results because of mixed-field reactions, 10 gave negative results with A2 RBCs in reverse ABO grouping, and 2 gave very weak positive reactions in antibody screening and crossmatching. In the samples from immunized patients, the device missed one weak anti-K, whereas standard methods missed five weak antibodies. In addition, 48, 34, and 31 of the 53 weak or variant antigens were detected by the device, the slide method, and the semiautomated handler, respectively. Technician time with the standard methods was 1.6 to 7 times higher than that with the device. CONCLUSION: The technical performance of the device compared favorably with that of standard methods, with a number of advantages, including in particular the saving of technician time. Sample inadequacy was the most common cause of discrepancy, which suggests that standardization of sample collection can further improve the performance of the device. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Plný text