Comparison Between Conventional and Automated Techniques for Blood Grouping and Crossmatching: Experience from a Tertiary Care Centre

Swarupa Nikhil Bhagwat; Jayashree H Sharma; Julie Jose; Charusmita J Modi

doi:10.4103/0974-2727.163130

Journal of Laboratory Physicians, Inhaltsverzeichnis

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Lab Physicians 2015; 7(02): 096-102
DOI: 10.4103/0974-2727.163130

Original Article

Comparison Between Conventional and Automated Techniques for Blood Grouping and Crossmatching: Experience from a Tertiary Care Centre

Autor*innen

Swarupa Nikhil Bhagwat

Department of Transfusion Medicine, Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Jayashree H Sharma

Department of Transfusion Medicine, Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Julie Jose

Department of Transfusion Medicine, Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Charusmita J Modi

Department of Transfusion Medicine, Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Abstract

als PDF herunterladen

ABSTRACT

Context: The routine immunohematological tests can be performed by automated as well as manual techniques. These techniques have advantages and disadvantages inherent to them.

Aims:The present study aims to compare the results of manual and automated techniques for blood grouping and crossmatching so as to validate the automated system effectively.

Materials and Methods: A total of 1000 samples were subjected to blood grouping by the conventional tube technique (CTT) and the automated microplate LYRA system on Techno TwinStation. A total of 269 samples (multitransfused patients and multigravida females) were compared for 927 crossmatches by the CTT in indirect antiglobulin phase against the column agglutination technique (CAT) performed on Techno TwinStation.

Results: For blood grouping, the study showed a concordance in results for 942/1000 samples (94.2%), discordance for 4/1000 (0.4%) samples and uninterpretable result for 54/1000 samples (5.4%). On resolution, the uninterpretable results reduced to 49/1000 samples (4.9%) with 951/1000 samples (95.1%) showing concordant results. For crossmatching, the automated CAT showed concordant results in 887/927 (95.6%) and discordant results in 3/927 (0.32%) crossmatches as compared to the CTT. Total 37/927 (3.9%) crossmatches were not interpretable by the automated technique.

Conclusion: The automated system shows a high concordance of results with CTT and hence can be brought into routine use. However, the high proportion of uninterpretable results emphasizes on the fact that proper training and standardization are needed prior to its use.

Keywords

Automated technique - conventional tube technique - immunohematology - pretransfusion compatibility

PDF (416 kb)

Referenzen

REFERENCES
1 South SF, Casina TS, Li L. Exponential error reduction in pretransfusion testing with automation. Transfusion 2012;52:81S-7.
2 Downes KA, Shulman IA. Pretransfusion testing. In: Roback JD, editor. Technical Manual. 17^th ed. Bethesda, MD: American Association of Blood Banks; 2011. p. 437-62.
3 Carlson TH, editor. Standards for Blood Banks and Transfusion Services. 27^th ed. Bethesda, MD: American Association of Blood Banks; 2011.
4 Bajpai M, Kaur R, Gupta E. Automation in immunohematology. Asian J Transfus Sci 2012;6:140-4.
5 Rumsey DH, Ciesielski DJ. New protocols in serologic testing: A review of techniques to meet today's challenges. Immunohematology 2000;16:131-7.
6 Roback JD, Barclay S, Hillyer CD. An automatable format for accurate immunohematology testing by flow cytometry. Transfusion 2003;43:918-27.
7 Langston MM, Procter JL, Cipolone KM, Stroncek DF. Evaluation of the gel system for ABO grouping and D typing. Transfusion 1999;39:300-5.
8 Bouix O, Ferrera V, Delamaire M, Redersdorff JC, Roubinet F. Erythrocyte-magnetized technology: An original and innovative method for blood group serology. Transfusion 2008;48:1878-85.
9 Garratty G. Advances in red blood cell immunology 1960 to 2009. Transfusion 2010;50:526-35.
10 Morelati F, Barcellini W, Manera MC, Paccapelo C, Revelli N, Villa MA, et al.New technologies in immunohaematology. Blood Transfus 2007;5:58-65.
11 Butch SH. Automation in the transfusion service. Immunohematology 2008;24:86-92.
12 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;28:214-20.
13 Sandler SG, Langeberg A, Avery N, Mintz PD. A fully automated blood typing system for hospital transfusion services. ABS2000 Study Group. Transfusion 2000;40:201-7.
14 Roback JD, editor. Methods. In: Technical Manual. 17^th ed. Bethesda, MD: American Association of Blood Banks; 2011. p. 875-87.
15 Schoenfeld H, Pretzel KJ, von Heymann C, Neuner B, Kalus U, Kiesewetter H, et al.Validation of a hospital-laboratory workstation for immunohematologic methods. Transfusion 2010;50:26-31.
16 Screnock D, Polk T, Lindberg A, Blumanhourst B, Miller D, Ogilvie G. Comparison of no type determined (NTD) rates between the Olympus PK7200 and PK7100 analyzers (abstract). Transfusion 1997;37:26S.
17 Mintz PD, Anderson G, Barrasso C, Sorenson E. Automated microplate ABO and Rh (D) blood grouping. Transfusion 1994;34:88.
18 Swarup D, Dhot PS, Kotwal J, Verma AK. Comparative study of blood cross matching using conventional tube and gel method. MJAFI 2008;64:129-30.
19 Kaur R, Kakkar N, Dhanoa J. Use of the gel-based DiaMed-ID microtyping system for crossmatching enhances sensitivity. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2003;46:617-20.