Red Cell Alloantibody Screening: Comparative Analysis of Three Different Technologies

Nicoletta Orlando, Maria Bianchi, Caterina Giovanna Valentini, Maddalena Maresca, Giuseppina Massini, Rossana Putzulu, Gina Zini, Luciana Teofili

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)179-183
Number of pages5
JournalTransfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy
Volume45
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 1 2018

Fingerprint

Isoantibodies
Agglutination
Technology
Erythrocyte Transfusion
Antibodies
Blood Banks
Patents
Sensitivity and Specificity

Keywords

  • Diagnostic accuracy
  • Individualized medicine
  • Predictive assays
  • Red blood cell alloantibodies
  • Type & Screen

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Hematology

Cite this

Red Cell Alloantibody Screening : Comparative Analysis of Three Different Technologies. / Orlando, Nicoletta; Bianchi, Maria; Valentini, Caterina Giovanna; Maresca, Maddalena; Massini, Giuseppina; Putzulu, Rossana; Zini, Gina; Teofili, Luciana.

In: Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy, Vol. 45, No. 3, 01.05.2018, p. 179-183.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Orlando, Nicoletta ; Bianchi, Maria ; Valentini, Caterina Giovanna ; Maresca, Maddalena ; Massini, Giuseppina ; Putzulu, Rossana ; Zini, Gina ; Teofili, Luciana. / Red Cell Alloantibody Screening : Comparative Analysis of Three Different Technologies. In: Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy. 2018 ; Vol. 45, No. 3. pp. 179-183.
@article{2944484a81854bcd8509c35753e06b49,
title = "Red Cell Alloantibody Screening: Comparative Analysis of Three Different Technologies",
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.",
keywords = "Diagnostic accuracy, Individualized medicine, Predictive assays, Red blood cell alloantibodies, Type & Screen",
author = "Nicoletta Orlando and Maria Bianchi and Valentini, {Caterina Giovanna} and Maddalena Maresca and Giuseppina Massini and Rossana Putzulu and Gina Zini and Luciana Teofili",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1159/000484570",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "179--183",
journal = "Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy",
issn = "1660-3796",
publisher = "S. Karger AG",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Red Cell Alloantibody Screening

T2 - Comparative Analysis of Three Different Technologies

AU - Orlando, Nicoletta

AU - Bianchi, Maria

AU - Valentini, Caterina Giovanna

AU - Maresca, Maddalena

AU - Massini, Giuseppina

AU - Putzulu, Rossana

AU - Zini, Gina

AU - Teofili, Luciana

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Diagnostic accuracy

KW - Individualized medicine

KW - Predictive assays

KW - Red blood cell alloantibodies

KW - Type & Screen

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043498215&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85043498215&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1159/000484570

DO - 10.1159/000484570

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85043498215

VL - 45

SP - 179

EP - 183

JO - Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy

JF - Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy

SN - 1660-3796

IS - 3

ER -