American National Red Cross
Subject: Medical Laboratory Technology
ISSN: 0894-203X
eISSN: 1930-3955
SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT
Marcia Cristina Zago Novaretti / Eduardo Jens Silveira / Edio da Costa Filho / Pedro Enrique Dorlhiac- Llacer / Dalton de Alencar Fischer Chamone
Keywords : gel test, antibody detection, PEG-IAT, pretransfusion testing
Citation Information : Immunohematology. Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 138-141, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/immunohematology-2019-595
License : (Transfer of Copyright)
Published Online: 18-October-2020
There are several methods for antibody detection and each technique has advantages and limitations. We compared the performance of the tube (polyethylene glycol–indirect antiglobulin test [PEG-IAT]) and gel test technique for antibody identification. From January to May 1999, we performed antibody screening tests by gel and tube techniques on 10,123 random blood samples submitted to our reference laboratory. Six hundred and twentyeight (6.2%) reactive samples were tested for antibody specificity by both methods. One hundred and ninety-six were reactive only by gel: 25 anti-D, 33 anti-C, 76 anti-E, 13 anti-c, 5 anti-e, 18 anti-K, 7 anti-Jka, 2 anti-Dia, 3 anti-S, 8 combination Rh antibodies (1 with antiK), and 6 other antibody specificities. Two samples were reactive only by PEG-IAT: 1 anti-K and 1 anti-Dia. Four hundred and thirty were positive by the two methods: 156 anti-D, 9 anti-C, 68 anti-E, 15 anti-c, 6 anti-e, 61 anti-K, 12 anti-Jka, 17 anti-Dia, 5 anti-S, 73 combination Rh antibodies (2 with anti-K), and 8 other antibody specificities. Based on this study, the gel test is more sensitive (p <.01) than the tube test for identifying potentially clinically significant antibodies.