Evaluation of Automated Blood Bank Systems AutoVue Innova and QWALYS-3 for ABO-RhD Grouping and Antibody Screening.
- Author:
Tae Kyu AN
1
;
Yoon Kyung SONG
;
Hee Seoung SEO
;
Kang Lim KIM
;
Jung Ah KIM
;
Chang Ha KO
;
Do Hoon LEE
;
Sun Young KONG
Author Information
1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea. ksy@ncc.re.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Blood bank;
Automation;
AutoVue Innova;
QWALYS-3
- MeSH:
Automation;
Blood Banks;
Cephalosporins;
Mass Screening;
Quality Control
- From:Korean Journal of Blood Transfusion
2012;23(3):204-209
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
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.
