Red Cell Alloantibody Screening: Comparative Analysis of Three Different Technologies

13Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Orlando, N., Bianchi, M., Valentini, C. G., Maresca, M., Massini, G., Putzulu, R., … Teofili, L. (2018). Red Cell Alloantibody Screening: Comparative Analysis of Three Different Technologies. Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy, 45(3), 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1159/000484570

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free