Annals of Laboratory Medicine

Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine (대한진단검사의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative Analysis of Clinical Samples Showing Weak Serum Reaction on AutoVue System Causing ABO Blood Typing Discrepancies

  • Jo, Su Yeon (Department of Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Ju Mi (Department of Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Hye Lim (Department of Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Sin, Kyeong Hwa (Department of Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Hyeon Ji (Department of Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital) ;
  • Chang, Chulhun Ludgerus (Department of Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Hyung-Hoi (Department of Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2016.05.18
  • Accepted : 2016.12.07
  • Published : 2017.03.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: ABO blood typing in pre-transfusion testing is a major component of the high workload in blood banks that therefore requires automation. We often experienced discrepant results from an automated system, especially weak serum reactions. We evaluated the discrepant results by the reference manual method to confirm ABO blood typing. Methods: In total, 13,113 blood samples were tested with the AutoVue system; all samples were run in parallel with the reference manual method according to the laboratory protocol. Results: The AutoVue system confirmed ABO blood typing of 12,816 samples (97.7%), and these results were concordant with those of the manual method. The remaining 297 samples (2.3%) showed discrepant results in the AutoVue system and were confirmed by the manual method. The discrepant results involved weak serum reactions (<2+ reaction grade), extra serum reactions, samples from patients who had received stem cell transplants, ABO subgroups, and specific system error messages. Among the 98 samples showing ${\leq}1$+ reaction grade in the AutoVue system, 70 samples (71.4%) showed a normal serum reaction (${\geq}2$+ reaction grade) with the manual method, and 28 samples (28.6%) showed weak serum reaction in both methods. Conclusions: ABO blood tying of 97.7% samples could be confirmed by the AutoVue system and a small proportion (2.3%) needed to be re-evaluated by the manual method. Samples with a 2+ reaction grade in serum typing do not need to be evaluated manually, while those with ${\leq}1$+ reaction grade do.

Keywords

References

  1. Davies A, Staves J, Kay J, Casbard A, Murphy MF. End-to-end electronic control of the hospital transfusion process to increase the safety of blood transfusion: strengths and weaknesses. Transfusion 2006;46:352-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2006.00729.x
  2. Sandler SG, Langeberg A, Avery N, Mintz PD. A fully automated blood typing system for hospital transfusion services. ABS2000 Study Group. Transfusion 2000;40:201-7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1537-2995.2000.40020201.x
  3. Chang C, Brown M, Davies L, Pointon L, Brown R, Barker D. Evaluation of $Erytra^{(R)}$ fully automated analyser for routine use in transfusion laboratory. Transfus Med 2014;24:33-8.
  4. Garratty G. Advances in red blood cell immunology 1960 to 2009. Transfusion 2010;50:526-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2009.02493.x
  5. Butch SH. Automation in the transfusion service. Immunohematology 2008;24:86-92.
  6. Cheng YW and Wilkinson JM. An experience of the introduction of a blood bank automation system (Ortho AutoVue Innova) in a regional acute hospital. Transfus Apher Sci 2015;53:58-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transci.2015.03.007
  7. Bajpai M, Kaur R, Gupta E. Automation in immunohematology. Asian J Transfus Sci 2012;6:140-4. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-6247.98914
  8. AuBuchon JP. Emily Cooley Memorial Award. Managing change to improve transfusion safety. Transfusion 2004;44:1377-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0041-1132.2004.04183.x
  9. Dada A, Beck D, Schmitz G. Automation and Data Processing in Blood Banking Using the Ortho AutoVue Innova System. Transfus Med Hemother 2007;34:341-6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000106558
  10. Shin SY, Kwon KC, Koo SH, Park JW, Ko CS, Song JH, Sung JY. Evaluation of Two Automated Instruments for Pre-transfusion Testing: AutoVue Innova and Techno TwinStation. Korean J Lab Med 2008;28:214-20. https://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2008.28.3.214
  11. An TK, Song YK, Seo HS, Kim KL, Kim JA, Ko CH, Lee DH, Kong SY. Evaluation of Automated Blood Bank Systems AutoVue Innova and QWALYS-3 for ABO-RhD Grouping and Antibody Screening. Korean J Blood Transfus 2012;23:204-9.
  12. Kim SH, Nam DH, Yang JH, Yoon SY, Kim YK, Lee KN, Lim CS. Evaluation of the Automatic Blood Bank Instrument AutoVue Innova for Antibody Screening. Korean J Blood Transfus 2008;19:140-5.
  13. British Committee for Standards in Haemotology, Milkins C, Berryman J, Cantwell C, Elliot C, Hassa R, et al. Guidelines for pre-transfusion compatibility procedures in blood transfusion laboratories. Transfus Med 2013;23:3-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3148.2012.01199.x
  14. Taylor J, Hyare J, Stelfox P, Williams M, Lees R, Maley M. Multi-centre evaluation of pre-transfusional routine tests using 8-column format gel card (DG $Gel^{(R)}$). Transfus Med 2011:90-8.
  15. Cooling L., ABO, H, and Lewis Blood Groups and Structurally Related Antigens. In: Fung MK, Grossman BJ, et al. eds. Technical manual. 18th ed. Bethesda: American Association of Blood Banks, 2014:291-315.
  16. Cho D, Lee JS, Park JY, Jeon MJ, Song JW, Kim SH, et al. Resolution of ABO discrepancies by ABO genotyping. Korean J Lab Med 2006;26: 107-13. https://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2006.26.2.107
  17. Bhagwat SN, Sharma JH, Jose J, Modi CJ. Comparison between conventional and automated techniques for blood grouping and crossmatching: experience from a tertiary care centre. J Lab Physicians 2015;7:96-102. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-2727.163130
  18. Storry JR and Olsson ML. The ABO blood group system revisited: a review and update. Immunohematology 2009;25:48-59.

Cited by

  1. Comparison of ABO Blood Group Typing between Automated Blood Bank Analyzer IH-500 and Manual Method vol.28, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.17945/kjbt.2017.28.2.126
  2. Evaluation of the Automated Immunohematology Analyzer DAYMATE M vol.7, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3343/lmo.2017.7.4.163
  3. ABO blood grouping discrepancies in the donor population vol.15, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/voxs.12550
  4. Evaluation of the Automated Analyzer AutoVue Innova for Blood Group Typing: Clinical Implementation at a Tertiary Hospital over 2 Years vol.31, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.17945/kjbt.2020.31.2.131