PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Background
The use of automated systems for pre-transfusion tests is increasing in an attempt to reduce workload and the impact of human errors in blood banks. We evaluated the clinical performance of the automated blood bank systems IH-500 (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Switzerland) and VISION Max (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, USA) for ABO-RhD blood typing and unexpected antibody screening.
Methods
ABO-RhD blood typing was performed for 410 samples, and antibody screening was performed for 332 samples, including 15 antibody-positive samples. The results obtained from the two automated instruments were compared with those obtained using manual methods for ABO-RhD blood typing and a semiautomated method (DiaMed-ID system) for antibody screening. Additionally, both instruments were evaluated in terms of concordance rates, sensitivity, and carryover.
Results
The concordance rate of the ABO-RhD blood typing results between the manual methods and the two automated instruments was 100%. For antibody screening tests, the concordance rates between the semiautomated method (DiaMed-ID system) and the automated methods were 100% and 99.7% for the IH-500 and VISION Max instruments, respectively. The sole discrepant result was obtained for a sample identified as antibody-positive only on the VISION Max; the antibody was identified as anti-Lea. The overall sensitivity of the two automated instruments was the same as or higher than that of the semiautomated method. Carryover was not observed in antibody screening.
Figures and Tables
Table 1
Comparison between manual and automated methods for ABO typing
Table 2
Comparison between manual and automated methods for RhD typing
Table 3
Comparison between semiautomated and automated methods for antibody screening
References
1. Han KS, Park KU, Song EY. Transfusion medicine. 4th ed. Seoul: Korea Medical Book Publisher;2014. p. 269–277.
2. Malomgré W, Neumeister B. Recent and future trends in blood group typing. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2009; 393:1443–1451.
3. Shin KH, Kim HH, Chang CL, Lee EY. Economic and workflow analysis of a blood bank automated system. Ann Lab Med. 2013; 33:268–273.
4. Shin SY, Kwon KC, Koo SH, Park JW, Ko CS, Song JH, et al. Evaluation of two automated instruments for pre-transfusion testing: AutoVue Innova and Techno TwinStation. Korean J Lab Med. 2008; 28:214–220.
5. Song YK, An TK, Hwang JY, Shim HE, Lee DH, Kong SY. Comparison of effectiveness between blood bank automation system and manual method for ABO-RhD blood typing and antibody screening test in a single center. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2014; 25:93–98.
6. Garratty G. Advances in red blood cell immunology 1960 to 2009. Transfusion. 2010; 50:526–535.
7. Bajpai M, Kaur R, Gupta E. Automation in immunohematology. Asian J Transfus Sci. 2012; 6:140.
8. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). CLSI document EP12-A2. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute;2008.
9. Park Y, Lim J, Ko YH, Kwon K, Koo S, Kim J. Evaluation of IH-1000 for automated ABO-Rh typing and irregular antibody screening. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2012; 23:127–135.
10. Park JS, Park CM, Chang HE, Kim MJ, Park KU, Song J, et al. Evaluation of the performance of the DG Gel test for unexpected antibody screening and identification. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2008; 19:49–56.
11. Cid J, Nogues N, Montero R, Hurtado M, Briega A, Parra R. Comparison of three microtube column agglutination systems for antibody screening: DG Gel, DiaMed-ID and Ortho BioVue. Transfus Med. 2006; 16:131–136.
12. Han KS, Cho HI, Kim SI. A Study on the hemolytic transfusion reactions due to irregular antibodies. Korean J Hematol. 1989; 24:27–33.
13. Höglund P, Rosengren-Lindquist R, Wikman AT. A severe haemolytic transfusion reaction caused by anti-Lea active at 37℃. Blood Transfus. 2013; 11:456–459.
14. Lee DD, Oh SH, Shin HJ, Chung JS, Cho GJ, Park TS, et al. Diagnostic usefulness of antibody identification test including enzyme method. Korean J Hematol. 2006; 41:167–171.
15. Weisbach V, Ziener A, Zimmermann R, Glaser A, Zingsem J, Eckstein R. Comparison of the performance of four microtube column agglutination systems in the detection of red cell alloantibodies. Transfusion. 1999; 39:1045–1050.
16. Weisbach V, Kohnhäuser T, Zimmermann R, Ringwald J, Strasser E, Zingsem J, et al. Comparison of the performance of microtube column systems and solid-phase systems and the tube low-ionic-strength solution additive indirect antiglobulin test in the detection of red cell alloantibodies. Transfus Med. 2006; 16:276–284.
17. Kim SH, Nam DH, Yang JH, Yoon SY, Kim YK, Lee KN, et al. Evaluation of the automatic blood bank instrument AutoVue Innova for antibody screening. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2008; 19:140–145.
18. Lim G, Park KS, Park TS, Lee HJ, Suh JT, Park SY. The frequency and distribution of unexpected antibodies in transfusion candidates with the use of the Ortho Biovue System: recent four year experience. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2009; 20:23–31.
19. Joo SY, Han KS, Kwak YK, Park KU. Evaluation of an automated solid-phase cell adherence assay in the Galileo System (Immucor) for routine pretransfusion tests. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2011; 22:134–143.
20. An TK, Song YK, Seo HS, Kim KL, Kim JA, Ko CH, et al. Evaluation of automated blood bank systems AutoVue Innova and QWALYS-3 for ABO-RhD grouping and antibody screening. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2012; 23:204–209.
21. Jang MA, Oh JW, Lee ST, Seo JY, Kim DW. Evaluation of the automated blood bank systems Galileo NEO and QWALYS-3 for ABO-RhD typing and antibody screening. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2014; 25:235–242.
22. Ko YH, Kim JM, Koo SH, Lim J, Park YC, Kwon KC. Evaluation of the automated QWALYS-3 System for ABO and RhD grouping and unexpected antibody screening. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2011; 22:144–150.
XML Download