Evaluation of the DG Gel System using the Microtube Column Agglutination Technique for Antibody Screening and Identification / 대한수혈학회지

BACKGROUND: For the antibody screening test, the classical LISS tube indirect antiglobulin test has been replaced by the microtube column agglutination system in Korea. This system was first created in 1990 by Lapierre and it is distributed through DiaMed (DiaMed Ag, Cresssier, Morat, Switzerland) around the world. Similar systems, such as Ortho BioVue, have been developed and competed after that. We evaluated a newly developed microtube column agglutination system, DG Gel (Diagnostic Grifols, Barcelona, Spain), and we compare it with the other established systems. METHODS: In a comparative study, a total of 126 samples, including 76 antibody screening positive samples and 50 negative samples, were tested in parallel by the LISS/Coombs card (DiaMed Ag, Cresssier, Morat, Switzerland) and the DG Gel microtube column agglutination system. The positive samples that were proved by the LISS/Coombs card and the DG Gel system were identified by the ID-Dia panel (DiaMed Ag, Cresssier, Morat, Switzerland) and Identisera Diana (Diagnostic Grifols, Barcelona, Spain). Discrepant samples were rechecked with I, II and III cells that were supplied by the panel of the Korea Red Cross Blood Center. RESULTS: Among the 126 samples, the DG Gel antibody screening system showed 98.7% (75/76) sensitivity and 100% (50/50) specificity. We obtained concordant results in 75 samples (98.7%) and discrepant results in one sample (1.32%) between the DG Gel and DiaMed-ID for antibody identification. CONCLUSION: Both the microtube column agglutination systems work well and showed high estimated sensitivity and specificity with high concordance. Therefore, the DG gel microtube column agglutination system can be used with good results.

The Effect of Number of Reagent Red Cells on the Antibody Screening and Identification / 대한수혈학회지

BACKGROUND: The number of reagent red cells has an effect on the results of an unexpected antibody screening test. We evaluated the effect of the number of reagent red cells on antibody screening and identification using test panels of a DG Gel (Diagnostic Grifols, Barcelona, Spain). METHODS: A total of 310 samples were tested in parallel using SeraScan Diana 2 and SeraScan Diana 4 (Diagnostic Grifols, Barcelona, Spain) and ID-DiaCell (DiaMed, Cressier, Morat, Switzerland). Positive samples as determined by the use of SeraScan and ID-DiaCell were identified on an ID-Dia panel (DiaMed), Identisera Diana and Identisera Extend (Diagnostic Grifolsn). RESULTS: Among the 310 samples, 54, 59 and 59 samples were determined as antibody positive by the use of SeraScan Diana 2, SeraScan Diana 4 and ID-DiaCell, respectively. Unexpected antibodies were identified in 10/59 samples (17%) by the use of SeraScan Diana 4, and were identified in 34/59 samples (57.6%) by the combined use of SeraScan Diana 2 and SeraScan Diana 4. Identification of unexpected antibodies by the use of Identisera Diana or Identisera Extend was not different. CONCLUSION: When the results of SeraScan Diana 2 and SeraScan Diana 4 are integrated, unexpected antibodies could be identified in 57.6% of the screening-positive samples. Therefore, if the number of reagent red cells is increased, some antibodies can be identified by antibody screening tests, and the results can be used to validate those of antibody identification tests.