RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The automation system for blood typing and antibody screening has been developed and is now used widely. In this study, we evaluated the economic effectiveness between automation system QWALYS-3 (DIAGAST, Loos Cedex, France) and manual testing. METHODS: Clinical samples from March 2012 were used for comparison of the costs and TAT for ABO-RhD blood typing and antibody screening. The costs included those of materials (reagents and consumables), labor, and equipment depreciation. TAT was analyzed for either blood typing only for one, 16, and 32 samples or blood typing and antibody screening for the same number of samples. RESULTS: The blood typing TAT for one, 16, and 32 samples was 4.5, 35.1, and 70.1 minutes by manual and 24.0, 36.0, and 38.1 minutes by automated system. Both blood typing and antibody screening TAT for one, 16, and 32 samples was 27.5, 75.0, and 129.9 minutes by manual and 45.0, 52.0, and 54.0 minutes by automation. CONCLUSION: The blood automation system reduced TAT only for the batch test, therefore, when using the automation system, blood bank test size and emergency situation should be considered.
Assuntos
Automação , Bancos de Sangue , Tipagem e Reações Cruzadas Sanguíneas , Depreciação , Emergências , Programas de RastreamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Introduction of automation instruments for the blood bank is essential in order to reduce inspection error and minimize workload. We compared the results of ABO-RhD blood type and antibody screening tests using the manual method and those using the automation instruments AutoVue Innova (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Raritan, NJ, USA) and QWALYS-3 (DIAGAST, Loos Cedex, France). METHODS: ABO-RhD blood type tests using the slide method, the tube method, and the instruments were performed with 200 selected samples. Antibody screening tests using the Ortho BioVue system (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Raritan, NJ, USA), which is used in our laboratory, and the two instruments were performed with 188 specimens and 12 antibody positive samples that were kept in the laboratory. We evaluated the concordance rate of the results, applying CLSI guideline EP12-A2. RESULTS: The concordance rate of ABO-RhD blood type results between the manual methods and the two instruments was 100%. On antibody screening tests, a concordance rate of 100% was observed between the manual method and AutoVue Innova, which uses the gel card manufactured by the company making the gel card used for the manual method. However, using QWALYS-3 in performance of antibody screening tests, the concordance rate was 97.5%, because of discordance in five specimens. CONCLUSION: The concordance rate of ABO-RhD blood type by use of two automation instruments was 100%, however, that of the antibody screening test was 97.5%. Thus, there was a difference in positive rate on the antibody screening test, depending on the instrument. Therefore, introduction of an instrument, considering the pros and cons for each instrument, is necessary. In addition, further discussion of standardized guidelines for quality control is needed.