Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Lab Physicians 2017; 9(02): 095-099
DOI: 10.4103/0974-2727.199627
Original Article

Comparison of micro column technology with conventional tube methods for antibody detection

Sachin Garg
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
,
Nishant Saini
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India
,
Ravneet Kaur Bedi
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India
,
Sabita Basu
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Conventional tube technique (CTT) has been the mainstay for antibody detection in pretransfusion testing. There have been rapid technological advances in blood banking and methodology of crossmatch has been modified to improve the sensitivity of these tests and to enable automation. This study was done to compare the efficacy of three crossmatch techniques: CTT, tube low-ionic-strength-saline indirect antiglobulin test (tube LISS-IAT), and micro column technology (MCT) used in the blood bank serology laboratory.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 150 samples from patients who had received two or more transfusions on two different occasions (with at least 72 h between two transfusions) were subjected to cross match by three different techniques – CTT, LISS-IAT, and MCT.

RESULTS: A total of 16 cases with antibodies were identified in 150 patients. Out of 16 cases, 14 were clinically significant (anti-c = 5, anti-K = 4, anti-E = 2, anti-S = 2, anti-Jka = 1) and 2 nonclinically significant antibody cases (anti-Lea). MCT detected all the 14 clinically significant antibody cases and no case of nonclinically significant antibody. Tube LISS-IAT detected 14 antibody cases including 2 cases of non-clinically significant antibody but failed to detect 1 case of anti-c and the only case of anti-Jka. CTT detected only 10 antibody cases including 2 cases of non-clinically significant antibody and but failed to detect 3 cases of anti-c, 1 case of anti-K, 1 case of anti-E, and the only case of anti-Jka.

CONCLUSION: MCT was found to be most efficacious when compared to CTT and tube LISS-IAT in detecting clinically significant red cell antibodies; although MCT missed 2 cases of Lea antibody which were detected by CTT and LISS-IAT.

Keywords

Crossmatch - pretransfusion testing - antibody


Publication History

Received: 15 February 2016

Accepted: 13 September 2016

Article published online:
19 February 2020

© 2017.

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Shulman IA, Downes KA, Sazama K, Maffei LM. Pretransfusion compatibility testing for red blood cell administration. Curr Opin Hematol 2001;8:397-404.
  • 2 Downes KA, Shulman IA. Pretransfusion testing. In: Roback JD, Grossman BJ, Harris T, Hillyer CD, editors. American Association of Blood Banking (AABB) Technical Manual. 17th ed. AABB, Bethesda; 2011. p. 437-61.
  • 3 Voak D. Validation of new technology for antibody detection by antiglobulin tests. Transfus Med 1992;2:177-9.
  • 4 Phillips PK, Whitton CM, Lavin F. The use of the antiglobulin 'gel-test' for antibody detection. Transfus Med 1992;2:111-3.
  • 5 Bajpai M, Kaur R, Gupta E. Automation in immunohematology. Asian J Transfus Sci 2012;6:140-4.
  • 6 Westhoff CM. Red cell immunology and compatibility testing. In: Simon TL, McCullough J, Snyder EL, Solheim BG, Strauss RG, editors. Rossi's Principles of Transfusion Medicine. 5th ed., Ch. 16. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2016. p. 200.
  • 7 Lapierre Y, Rigal D, Adam J, Josef D, Meyer F, Greber S, et al. The gel test: A new way to detect red cell antigen-antibody reactions. Transfusion 1990;30:109-13.
  • 8 Bromilow IM, Adams KE, Hope J, Eggington JA, Duguid JK. Evaluation of the ID-gel test for antibody screening and identification. Transfus Med 1991;1:159-61.
  • 9 Kretschmer V, Heuckeroth A, Schulzki T, Dietrich G. Superiority of gel centrifugation in antibody screening and identification. Infusionsther Transfusionsmed 1992;19:226-30.
  • 10 Preparation of solution & methods. In: Saran RK, editor. Transfusion Medicine Technical Manual. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Directorate General of Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; 2003. p. 305-40.
  • 11 General laboratory methods. In: Roback JD, Grossman BJ, Harris T, Hillyer CD, editors. American Association of Blood Banking Technical Manual. 17th ed. AABB, Bethesda; 2011. p. 863-74.
  • 12 Casina TS. In search of the Holy Grail: Comparison of antibody screening methods. Immunohematology 2006;22:196-202.
  • 13 Patel J, Shukla R, Gupte S. Red cell alloimmunization in multitransfused patients and multiparous women. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus 2009;25:49-52.
  • 14 Shukla JS, Chaudhary RK. Red cell alloimmunization in multi-transfused chronic renal failure patients undergoing hemodialysis. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 1999;42:299-302.
  • 15 Fluit CR, Kunst VA, Drenthe-Schonk AM. Incidence of red cell antibodies after multiple blood transfusion. Transfusion 1990;30:532-5.
  • 16 Coles SM, Klein HG, Holland PV. Red cell alloimmunization in a diverse population of transfused patients with thalassaemia. Transfusion 1981;21:462-6.
  • 17 Löw B, Messeter L. Antiglobulin test in low-ionic strength salt solution for rapid antibody screening and cross-matching. Vox Sang 1974;26:53-61.
  • 18 Wicker B, Wallas CH. A comparison of a low ionic strength saline medium with routine methods for antibody detection. Transfusion 1976;16:469-72.
  • 19 Reis KJ, Chachowski R, Cupido A, Davies D, Jakway J, Setcavage TM. Column agglutination technology: The antiglobulin test. Transfusion 1993;33:639-43.
  • 20 Lown JA, Barr AL, Davis RE. Use of low ionic strength saline for crossmatching and antibody screening. J Clin Pathol 1979;32:1019-24.
  • 21 Pinkerton PH, Ward J, Chan R, Coovadia AS. An evaluation of a gel technique for antibody screening compared with a conventional tube method. Transfus Med 1993;3:201-5.
  • 22 Cate JC 4th, Reilly N. Evaluation and implementation of the gel test for indirect antiglobulin testing in a community hospital laboratory. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999;123:693-7.
  • 23 Weisbach V, Kohnhäuser T, Zimmermann R, Ringwald J, Strasser E, Zingsem J, et al. Comparison of the performance of microtube column systems and solid-phase systems and the tube low-ionic-strength solution additive indirect antiglobulin test in the detection of red cell alloantibodies. Transfus Med 2006;16:276-84.
  • 24 Merry AH, Thomson EE, Lagar J, Howell P, Voak D, Downie M, et al. Quantitation of antibody binding to erythrocytes in LISS. Vox Sang 1984;47:125-32.
  • 25 Molthan L, Strohm PL. Hemolytic transfusion reaction due to anti-Kell undetectable in low-ionic-strength solutions. Am J Clin Pathol 1981;75:629-31.
  • 26 Ahn JH, Rosenfield RE, Kochwa S. Low ionic antiglobulin tests. Transfusion 1987;27:125-33.
  • 27 Swarup D, Dhot PS, Kotwal J, Verma AK. Comparative study of blood cross matching using conventional tube and gel method. Med J Armed Forces India 2008;64:129-30.
  • 28 Lange J, Selleng K, Heddle NM, Traore A, Greinacher A. Coombs' crossmatch after negative antibody screening – A retrospective observational study comparing the tube test and the microcolumn technology. Vox Sang 2010;98(3 Pt 1):e269-75.