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

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Immunohematology

American National Red Cross

Subject: Medical Laboratory Technology

GET ALERTS SUBSCRIBE

ISSN: 0894-203X
eISSN: 1930-3955

DESCRIPTION

2
Reader(s)
2
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Archive
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Volume 30 (2014)
Volume 29 (2013)
Volume 28 (2012)
Volume 27 (2011)
Volume 26 (2010)
Volume 25 (2009)
Volume 24 (2008)
Volume 23 (2007)
Volume 22 (2006)
Volume 21 (2005)
Volume 20 (2004)
Volume 19 (2003)
Volume 18 (2002)
Volume 17 (2001)
Volume 16 (2000)
Volume 15 (1999)
Volume 14 (1998)
Volume 13 (1997)
Volume 12 (1996)
Volume 11 (1995)
Volume 10 (1994)
Volume 9 (1993)
Volume 8 (1992)
Volume 7 (1991)
Volume 6 (1990)
Volume 5 (1989)
Volume 4 (1988)
Volume 3 (1987)
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 3 (September 2001) > List of articles

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

Martha Rae Combs / Steven J. Bredehoeft

Keywords : antibody detection, gel, PEG

Citation Information : Immunohematology. Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 86-89, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/immunohematology-2019-553

License : (Transfer of Copyright)

Published Online: 14-October-2020

ARTICLE

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.

You don't have 'Full Text' access of this article.

Purchase Article Subscribe Journal Share