<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>The Transfusion Service at Duke University Hospital has changed antibody detection methods from the use of albumin in indirect antiglobulin tests to low-ionic-strength solution (LISS), and from LISS to polyethylene glycol (PEG) in an effort to enhance the rapid detection of clinically significant antibodies. In 1996, staffing issues required the consideration of automation. Although previous studies indicated that the gel test was not as sensitive as PEG for detection of clinically significant antibodies, we chose to implement the gel test to be used with the Tecan MegaFlex-ID. We performed a retrospective analysis of identified antibodies and transfusion reactions to compare the outcomes of one year’s experience with gel and PEG. We found comparable detection of potentially clinically significant antibodies by both methods and significantly fewer unwanted or clinically insignificant antibodies detected with the use of gel. Fewer delayed serologic transfusion reactions and no transfusion-associated hemolytic events occurred in the year that gel was used. Although we initially found the selection of the gel test to be a dilemma, our ultimate decision appears to have successfully protected patient safety and balanced sensitivity with specificity. <bold><italic>Immunohematology</italic> 2001;17:86–89</bold></p></abstract>

The Transfusion Service at Duke University Hospital has changed antibody detection methods from the use of albumin in indirect antiglobulin tests to low-ionic-strength solution (LISS), and from LISS to polyethylene glycol (PEG) in an effort to enhance the rapid detection of clinically significant antibodies. In 1996, staffing issues required the consideration of automation. Although previous studies indicated that the gel test was not as sensitive as PEG for detection of clinically significant antibodies, we chose to implement the gel test to be used with the Tecan MegaFlex-ID. We performed a retrospective analysis of identified antibodies and transfusion reactions to compare the outcomes of one year’s experience with gel and PEG. We found comparable detection of potentially clinically significant antibodies by both methods and significantly fewer unwanted or clinically insignificant antibodies detected with the use of gel. Fewer delayed serologic transfusion reactions and no transfusion-associated hemolytic events occurred in the year that gel was used. Although we initially found the selection of the gel test to be a dilemma, our ultimate decision appears to have successfully protected patient safety and balanced sensitivity with specificity. Immunohematology 2001;17:86–89

Selecting an acceptable and safe antibody detection test can present a dilemma

Immunohematology

{"article-title":"Selecting an acceptable and safe antibody detection test can present a dilemma"}

The Transfusion Service at Duke University Hospital has changed antibody detection methods from the use of albumin in indirect antiglobulin tests to...

Selecting an acceptable and safe antibody detection test can present a dilemma

Online veröffentlicht: 14. Okt. 2020

Seitenbereich: 86 - 89

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/immunohematology-2019-553

Schlüsselwörter
antibody detection, gel, PEG

© 2019 M. R. Combs et al., published by Sciendo

Selecting an acceptable and safe antibody detection test can present a dilemma

Online veröffentlicht: 14. Okt. 2020

Seitenbereich: 86 - 89

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/immunohematology-2019-553

Schlüsselwörterantibody detection, gel, PEG

© 2019 M. R. Combs et al., published by Sciendo

Schlüsselwörter
antibody detection, gel, PEG