ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pre-transfusion tests are important for performing safe transfusion and there is a need to standardize the process of these tests. In blood banks, automation of tests is under developed and there is always a high risk of error. Automatic instruments for blood bank tests are used in blood centers where a great volume of tests are performed. However, other small scale hospitals have little experience with automatic blood bank instruments. Here, we evaluated the newly developed automatic instrument, the AutoVue Innova (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Raritan, NJ, USA), for performing unexpected antibody screening tests and we compared this to other well known systems. METHODS: In a comparative study, a total of 136 samples, including 28 antibody screening positive samples and 108 negative samples, were tested in parallel by the LISS/Coombs card (DiaMed Ag, Cresssier, Morat, Switzerland) and the AutoVue Innova. The positive samples that were proven by the LISS/Coombs card and the AutoVue Innova were identified by the ID-DiaCell panel (DiaMed Ag, Cresssier, Morat, Switzerland) and the 0.8% Resolve Panel A (Ortho, Raritan, NJ, USA), respectively. Discrepant samples were rechecked by the Identisera Diana (Diagnostic Grifols, Barcelona, Spain). RESULTS: Among the 136 samples, 134 results (98.5%) of the AutoVue Innova agreed with those of the LISS/Coombs card and 2 results were discrepant. These two results were antibody screening positive only on the AutoVue and they were identified as being anti-Lewis(a). CONCLUSION: The unexpected antibody screening tests using the AutoVue Innova showed reliable results for general accuracy and they were useful in aspect of a decreased workload and increased safety, and even for less experienced persons.
Subject(s)
Automation , Blood Banks , Mass ScreeningABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pre-transfusion tests are important for performing safe transfusion and there is a need to standardize the process of these tests. In blood banks, automation of tests is under developed and there is always a high risk of error. Automatic instruments for blood bank tests are used in blood centers where a great volume of tests are performed. However, other small scale hospitals have little experience with automatic blood bank instruments. Here, we evaluated the newly developed automatic instrument, the AutoVue Innova (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Raritan, NJ, USA), for performing unexpected antibody screening tests and we compared this to other well known systems. METHODS: In a comparative study, a total of 136 samples, including 28 antibody screening positive samples and 108 negative samples, were tested in parallel by the LISS/Coombs card (DiaMed Ag, Cresssier, Morat, Switzerland) and the AutoVue Innova. The positive samples that were proven by the LISS/Coombs card and the AutoVue Innova were identified by the ID-DiaCell panel (DiaMed Ag, Cresssier, Morat, Switzerland) and the 0.8% Resolve Panel A (Ortho, Raritan, NJ, USA), respectively. Discrepant samples were rechecked by the Identisera Diana (Diagnostic Grifols, Barcelona, Spain). RESULTS: Among the 136 samples, 134 results (98.5%) of the AutoVue Innova agreed with those of the LISS/Coombs card and 2 results were discrepant. These two results were antibody screening positive only on the AutoVue and they were identified as being anti-Lewis(a). CONCLUSION: The unexpected antibody screening tests using the AutoVue Innova showed reliable results for general accuracy and they were useful in aspect of a decreased workload and increased safety, and even for less experienced persons.
Subject(s)
Automation , Blood Banks , Mass ScreeningABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The AutoVue Innova (Ortho Clinical Diagnostic, Raritan, NJ, USA) is an automatic instrument for blood bank tests, and it has recently been introduced in Korea for the first time at our hospital. This instrument employs column agglutination technology and it performs blood bank tests automatically. We evaluated this instrument and we report on the results. METHODS: We performed ABO/RhD typing and antibody screening for 250 randomly selected samples, and crossmatching for 261 samples with using the AutoVue Innova in parallel with the conventional manual methods. For a sensitivity test, we added 3 samples of A(2)B(3) and 2 samples of weak-D and serially diluted reagent antisera to the test pool and we measured turnaround time (TAT) for the antibody screening test. RESULTS: The concordance rates between AutoVue Innova and the manual methods for ABO/RhD blood typing, antibody screening and crossmatching tests were 99.6%, 100% and 98.9%, respectively. The overall retest rate was 0.5% and the main cause of the discrepancy was revealed to be hemolysis or an inadequate amount of the samples. The overall sensitivity of AutoVue Innova seems to be same as or better than the manual methods. The TAT for the antibody screening test was significantly shorter for the AutoVue Innova (64+/-43 min, n=512) than for the tube method (89+/-57 min, n=99) (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The test results of AutoVue Innova were accurate and sensitive for the ABO/RhD typing, crossmatching and antibody screening tests. The TAT for the antibody screening test was remarkably shortened up to five times more samples could be tested without an increase of manpower.