Nonhemolytic passenger lymphocyte syndrome: donor-derived anti-M in an M+ recipient of a multiorgan transplant.

Passenger lymphocyte syndrome (PLS) is a well-recognized complication that may follow a hematopoietic progenitor cell or solid-organ transplant. Typically, the syndrome presents as acute hemolysis of the recipient's RBCs, which have become serologically incompatible with blood group antibodies formed by passively transfused donor-origin B lymphocytes. Most cases involve anti-A or anti-B. However, there are cases involving non-ABO serologic incompatibility, as well as cases in which the serologic incompatibility was not associated with clinical evidence of hemolysis. This report describes a case of passenger lymphocyte syndrome in an M+ recipient who developed anti-M after receiving a multiorgan transplant from an M- cadaver donor. Although the temporal events and serologic findings were consistent with a diagnosis of PLS, there was no evidence of in vivo hemolysis associated with the identification of a newly formed anti-M. This report includes a literature review of other case reports of PLS associated with non-ABO antibodies in solid-organ and hematopoietic progenitor cell transplant recipients.

Bar code technology improves positive patient identification and transfusion safety.

As a result of human error, an estimated 1 in 12,000 blood transfusions is given to the wrong patient. The cause of nearly all of these errors is failure of hospital personnel to identify positively intended transfusion recipients, their blood samples for cross-matching, or their correct blood components. We describe our experience using a point-of-care bar code transfusion safety system that links patients' bar-coded wristbands, with bar-coded labels on blood sample tubes, blood component bags, and nurses' identification badges. The result was 100 % accuracy of matching patients, their blood samples, and components for transfusions. For verifying information before starting blood transfusions, nurses preferred bar code "double checks" to conventional visual "double checks" by a second nurse. Methods are needed to reinforce nurses' proficiency with technological approaches to transfusion safety, such as software-driven bar code scanning, in situations where transfusions are administered infrequently.

Equivalence of spray-dried K2EDTA, spray-dried K3EDTA, and liquid K3EDTA anticoagulated blood samples for routine blood center or transfusion service testing.

We compared the results of routine blood tests for 102 blood donors' samples and 100 patients' samples collected in spray-dried K2EDTA, spray-dried K3EDTA, and liquid K3EDTA blood collection tubes to evaluate the impact of changes in formulation of the anticoagulant (K2EDTA vs.K3EDTA), its application (liquid vs. spray-dried), and tube material (glass vs. plastic). Methods for ABO/D testing, antibody screening, and antibody identification included direct hemagglutination/microplate (Olympus(R) PK 7200) and gel column methods (Ortho ID-Micro Typing System/Gel Test). Additional studies on blood donors' samples included time delayed antigen testing and antibody identification and half-draw/half-evacuated collections. Also, we compared the results of routine ABO/D testing and antibody screening for 50 patients' samples collected in spray-dried K2EDTA and spray-dried K3EDTA and for an additional 50 patients' samples collected in spray-dried K2EDTA tubes from two different manufacturers. All patients' samples were tested in parallel by solid phase/microplate method (Immucor ABS 2000) and the standard manual tube method. All test results for routine blood bank tests on donors' and patients' samples were concordant, demonstrating the equivalence of spray-dried K2EDTA, spray-dried K3EDTA, and liquid K3EDTA blood collection tubes for routine donor center or transfusion service testing.

A solid phase and microtiter plate hemagglutination method for pretransfusion compatibility testing.

Most hospital blood transfusion services perform routine pretransfusion compatibility tests (ABO/D typings, antibody detection tests and crossmatches) using standard test tube methods. Recently, alternative technologies, including microtiter plate methods, solid phase red cell adherence (SPRCA) assays, gel tests, microbead columns and affinity column assays have become available. While the increased sensitivity of these new serological technologies is an important advantage, cost savings and automated testing are also important benefits. Our hospital's Transfusion Service converted from manual test tube methods for compatibility testing to manual microtiter plate and SPRCA methods and, subsequently, to automated microtiter plate and SPRCA methods. The conversion was facilitated by using commercially-marketed reagent kits and a fully-automated blood typing analyzer. The automated blood typing system was linked electronically to a hand-held combination bar code reader/portable data terminal that enabled positive identification of patients' bar code wrist bands, personal identification badges, and bar code labels on patients' blood samples and blood components. This bar code identification system has been implemented in the hospital's outpatient Infusion Service. Thus, the conversion to microtiter plate and SPRCA assays enhanced transfusion safety not only by increasing the sensitivity of serological testing, but also by standardizing compatibility testing, supporting electronic record keeping, and linking the laboratory analyzer to a bar code identification system.

A fully automated blood typing system for hospital transfusion services. ABS2000 Study Group.

BACKGROUND: The results of routine blood bank testing by a fully automated blood typing system (ABS2000) were compared with those obtained by standard manual methods in six hospital transfusion services. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The ABS2000 system uses microtiter plates for determining ABO and D types, solid-phase red cell adherence (SPRCA) assays for antibody detection, and modified SPRCA plates for IgG crossmatches. The transfusion services used their standard manual test tube methods. RESULTS: Of 3779 donors' samples tested for ABO types (red cell typings only), 3.0 percent could not be interpreted by the ABS2000 system's neural network, because of clots, hemolysis, or lipemic samples. The results for ABO types were concordant for 99.8 percent of the remaining samples. Of 3779 donors' samples tested for D types, the results were concordant for 98.7 percent. Of 7580 patients' samples tested for ABO types (red cell and plasma typings), 5.8 percent could not be interpreted by the ABS2000 system. There was 100-percent concordance of ABO typing results for the remaining 7140 samples. There was 99. 7-percent concordance of results for patients' D types. The results of 96.7 percent of antibody detection tests and 98.8 percent of crossmatches were concordant. Neither method failed to detect a serologically incompatible crossmatch that was associated with a specific, clinically significant alloantibody. The ABS2000 system performed 45 confirmatory donor ABO and D types in 115 minutes, 22 antibody detection tests in 116 minutes, 16 patients' ABO/D types in 149 minutes, and 40 crossmatches in 140 minutes. CONCLUSION: The ABS2000 blood typing system automates routine blood bank tests with accuracy comparable to that of hospital transfusion services' standard manual methods.

Improving transfusion safety by electronic identification of patients, blood samples, and blood units.

To evaluate the feasibility of using an electronic identification system to improve safety and documentation of blood transfusions, a hand-held bar code scanner and data terminal, portable label printer, and related software were integrated into all phases of the blood transfusion process, including sample collection, laboratory testing, and administration of blood components. The study was conducted in two hospitals, one in Italy and the other in the United States. Each hospital used different laboratory analysers and information systems. A total of 621 blood components were transfused to 177 patients using 331 blood samples with 100 percent accuracy and electronic documentation of all pertinent patient, staff, sample, testing, and component information. Bar code reading and related electronic technology can be adapted to improve transfusion safety and reduce the risk of human errors at all steps of the blood transfusion process.