ABSTRACT
We report here the results of surveys on external quality assessment (EQA) of blood bank tests in Korea carried out in 2014. The proficiency testing specimens were prepared at Ajou University Hospital and the response rates for the 1st and 2nd trials were 94.3% (537/549) and 96.0% (545/554), respectively. No answers were considered incorrect, and the average accuracy rates of six different test items on the regular survey were as follows: ABO grouping, 98.5% to 100.0%; RhD typing, 98.1% to 99.4%; crossmatching, 91.2% to 99.6%; direct antiglobulin test (DAT) using a polyspecific reagent, 96.7% to 98.4%; DAT using an immunoglobulin-G monospecific reagent, 93.8% to 98.7%; DAT using a C3d monospecific reagent, 89.5% to 98.7%; unexpected antibody screening test, 96.2% to 100.0%; and antibody identification test, 69.8% to 100.0%. Test items for the pilot survey were reactivities to anti-A1 and anti-H, Rh subgrouping, and ABO antibody titration. Except for the result of the antibody identification test for specimens with multiple antibodies, we obtained excellent survey results for the EQA of blood bank tests carried out in 2014. In addition, the number of participating institutes was higher in 2014 than in 2013. The EQA of blood bank tests in 2014 should be helpful for improving the quality of the participating laboratories.
Subject(s)
Academies and Institutes , Antibodies , Blood Banks , Coombs Test , Korea , Laboratory Proficiency Testing , Mass ScreeningABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Korean Blood Safety Commission has implemented external proficiency testing (PT) for blood grouping test (BGT) to help improve the quality of blood centers since 2011. We analyzed the results of 2014 PT for BGT to help in planning the future PT for BGT and to improve the quality of blood centers. METHODS: Whole blood survey samples including three panels for ABO grouping and three panels for D typing were sent to 69 institutes. Evaluation criteria for BGT were as follows: 'Good' for answers matched with intended results, 'Acceptable' for correct answers other than that of 'Good', 'Unacceptable' for answers other than those of 'Good+acceptable' as correct answers; and 'Not graded' for answers in case of different answers in the two standard laboratories. RESULTS: All of the answer rates of 'Good' for D typing were 100%. However, the answer rates of 'Good' for cell typing, serum typing and interpretation for 14-ABO-2 samples with discrepant result between cell typing and serum typing were 39.1%, 29%, and 47.8%, respectively. Those of 'Unacceptable' for cell typing and interpretation for 14-ABO-2 samples were 2.8% and 1.4%. CONCLUSION: Because the answer rates of ABO grouping for samples with discrepant result between cell typing and serum typing were not high, education for this case is needed. Diversity of materials for PT would be necessary for more accurate evaluation of the performance of BGT in blood centers.
Subject(s)
Academies and Institutes , Blood Grouping and Crossmatching , Blood Safety , EducationABSTRACT
We report here the results of surveys for External Quality Assessment (EQA) of blood bank tests carried out in 2013. The proficiency testing specimens were prepared at Ajou University Hospital and sent to 548 and 545 institutes participating in the 1st and 2nd trial, respectively. Test items for the surveys were ABO grouping, RhD typing, crossmatching, direct antiglobulin test (DAT), antibody screening test, and antibody identification test. The response rates for the 1st and 2nd trials were 94.3% and 96.0%, respectively. No answers were considered incorrect answers, and the average accuracy rates of different test items of the survey were as follows: ABO grouping, 98.9% to 100%; RhD typing, 98.4% to 99.2%; crossmatching, 94.4% to 100.0%; DAT using polyspecific reagent, 94.5% to 99.7%; DAT using IgG monospecific reagent, 94.7% to 98.8%; DAT using C3d monospecific reagent, 91.3% to 98.6%; unexpected antibody screening test, 90.9% to 100%; and antibody identification test, 87.3% to 100.0%. Overall, we obtained excellent survey results for the EQA of blood bank tests carried out in 2013, and the number of participating institutes was higher in 2013 than in 2012.
Subject(s)
Academies and Institutes , Blood Banks , Coombs Test , Immunoglobulin G , Korea , Laboratory Proficiency Testing , Mass ScreeningABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The ABO isoagglutinin titer is useful for the evaluation and observation of ABO incompatible bone marrow transplantation or organ transplantation, yet the results can be different depending on the test methods. Measurement of isoagglutinin titer using the gel test has recently been reported, but this test is expensive. In this study, we investigated isoagglutinin titer distribution of normal individuals using the different tube hemagglutination technique to help select the best test method and to interpret the agglutinin titer. METHODS: Normal healthy individuals were selected from those patients who underwent a physical examination at Ajou University Hospital, during July 2009. Sixty healthy individuals, (10 men and 10 women per each ABO blood group) were recruited for the study. The immediate spin method (IS), the anti-human globulin method with dithiothreitol treatment (DTT-AHG) and the anti-human globulin method without DTT treatment (AHG) were performed simultaneously. The reciprocal of the highest serum dilution that showed macroscopic agglutination 1+ or more was regarded as the isoagglutinin titer. RESULTS: The isoagglutinin titer measured by the AHG was the highest in the all blood groups. In case of blood groups A and B, the isoagglutinin titer by the IS was higher than that by the DTT-AHG, but this was quite the reverse in the case of the blood group O. CONCLUSION: If it is not necessary to distinguish IgM antibody and IgG antibody, then it seems that the AHG is the best practical method of those three methods. It was more sensitive than the IS and more rapid and easier than the DTT-AHG.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Male , Agglutination , Blood Group Antigens , Bone Marrow Transplantation , Dithiothreitol , Hemagglutination , Immunoglobulin G , Immunoglobulin M , Organ Transplantation , Physical Examination , TransplantsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: An unexpected antibody screening test with panel cells from abroad without Dia positive cells is common practice in most laboratories in Korea, although it is impossible to detect anti-Dia. Our laboratory have used DiaCell Dia (DiaMed Ag, Cressier, Morat, Switzerland) as one of antibody screening panel cells and only positive samples with DiaCell Dia cells have been also confirmed with Dia antigen positive panel cells from Korean Red Cross (KRC). In this study, the experiences and clinical usefulness of DiaCell Dia were evaluated. METHODS: The 26,102 pretransfusion samples were tested by DiaMed microcolumn gel assay using the LISS/Coombs card, ID-DiaCell I, II, and DiaCell Dia. The DiaMed microcolumn gel assay using the LISS/Coombs card has been used for unexpected antibody screening test with panel cells from KRC. RESULTS: The positive detection rate of unexpected antibody screening test using ID-DiaCell I and II was 0.58%(151/26, 102), and eleven samples were reactive (1+~2+) with DiaCell Dia panel cells (0.04%). However, only six(0.02%) of 11 samples were reactive(2+) with Dia positive cells from KRC. CONCLUSION: The discrepant detection rate for unexpected antibody with Dia panel cells between from DiaMed and KRC is supposed to need further study. The addition of Dia positive cells as an unexpected antibody screening panel cells is strongly recommended in case that antiglobulin phase of crossmatch is abbreviated for unimmunized patients.