Pretransfusion compatibility testing for red blood cell administration.

The purpose of pretransfusion compatibility testing is to prevent incompatible red blood cell transfusions that could lead to immune mediated hemolytic transfusion reactions. Some hemolytic transfusion reactions may have serious sequelae including hemoglobinemia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, renal failure, and death. This article reviews the most comprehensive recent analyses of the laboratory methods used during pretransfusion compatibility testing in the United States. Most of the laboratory practice data have been published in the College of American Pathologists Transfusion Medicine Survey Sets and in a national survey called the Pre-Transfusion Testing Survey. This article couples and trends the data of these comprehensive surveys with an assessment of the literature to present the current practice of pretransfusion compatibility testing.

Evaluation of a new automated instrument for pretransfusion testing.

BACKGROUND: A number of automated devices for pretransfusion testing have recently become available. This study evaluated a fully automated device based on column agglutination technology (AutoVue System, Ortho, Raritan, NJ). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Some 6747 tests including forward and reverse ABO group, Rh type and phenotype, antibody screen, autocontrol, and crossmatch were performed on random samples from 1069 blood donors, 2063 patients, and 98 newborns and cord blood. Also tested were samples from 168 immunized patients and 53 donors expressing weak or variant A and D antigens. Test results and technician times required for their performance were compared with those obtained by standard methods (manual column agglutination technology, slide, semiautomatic handler). RESULTS: No erroneous conclusions were found in regard to the 5028 ABO group and Rh type or phenotype determinations carried out with the device. The device rejected 1.53 percent of tests for sample inadequacy. Of the remaining 18 tests with discrepant results found with the device and not confirmed with the standard methods, 6 gave such results because of mixed-field reactions, 10 gave negative results with A2 RBCs in reverse ABO grouping, and 2 gave very weak positive reactions in antibody screening and crossmatching. In the samples from immunized patients, the device missed one weak anti-K, whereas standard methods missed five weak antibodies. In addition, 48, 34, and 31 of the 53 weak or variant antigens were detected by the device, the slide method, and the semiautomated handler, respectively. Technician time with the standard methods was 1.6 to 7 times higher than that with the device. CONCLUSION: The technical performance of the device compared favorably with that of standard methods, with a number of advantages, including in particular the saving of technician time. Sample inadequacy was the most common cause of discrepancy, which suggests that standardization of sample collection can further improve the performance of the device.

Survey on pretransfusion testing.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals and blood centers throughout the United States use a variety of reagents and methods to perform pretransfusion testing. A survey was developed to determine the reagents and methods in use and their relative prevalence in different work settings. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A national survey on pretransfusion testing was conducted. Surveys were distributed to state and regional blood bank associations, which then distributed them to hospitals and blood centers within their region. In most instances, the blood centers distributed the survey to the local hospitals. Completed surveys were returned to the authors for review, and all information was entered into a database for analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of the data shows that the majority of blood banks use monoclonal reagents for ABO testing and monoclonal-polyclonal blended reagents for Rh testing. The data show that anti-IgG and polyclonal antihuman globulin reagents are used almost equally for antibody screening (detection) tests and that most blood banks use a three-cell antibody-screening test. Slightly more than 50 percent of hospitals use an immediate-spin crossmatch in the absence of unexpected antibodies. CONCLUSION: A number of approved reagents and methods are used by blood bank laboratories for pretransfusion testing. Facility size (number of beds) and type tend to influence the choice of methods and reagents employed. This survey provides an opportunity for blood bank laboratories to compare their current practices with those of their peers.

A new approach to workload recording. A contemporary approach to staffing analysis.

The question of "How productive is our laboratory?" is one with which we wrestle constantly. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Workload Recording Method (WLR) is somewhat familiar to most laboratorians. It is a system that could be better used in most laboratories. The recent introduction of a new approach to productivity analysis and of code numbers for nonworkloaded activities makes the system easier to use and more meaningful in analyzing staff productivity. Laboratory managers strive constantly to answer the question, "How do I show administration my real staffing needs?" Personnel productivity analysis is a benefit of using the CAP WLR method.