A Comparison of Two Microcolumn Agglutination Systems for Red Cell Antibody Screening and Identification.
- Author:
Hye Yeon LEE
1
;
Shin Young JOO
;
Sue SHIN
;
Seung Jun SUNG
;
Eun Youn ROH
;
Jong Hyun YOON
;
Kyou Sup HAN
Author Information
1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Seoul National University Boramae Hospital, Seoul, Korea. jeannie@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Microcolumn agglutination;
Comparison;
Antibody screening
- MeSH:
Agglutination;
Antibodies;
Mass Screening
- From:Korean Journal of Blood Transfusion
2008;19(2):132-138
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: The use of the microcolumn agglutination method for red cell antibody screening and identification is on the increase because it has several advantages over the conventional tube method. The aim of this study was to compare two microcolumn agglutination systems, the Ortho BioVue (Ortho-clinical Diagnostics, Amershman, Bucks, UK) and the DiaMed-ID (DiaMed Ag, Cressier, Morat, Switzerland), which are both popularly used in Korea. METHODS: We used 897 consecutive serum samples that were requested to undergo red cell antibody screening. They were collected from February, 2008 to March, 2008 at Seoul National University Boramae Hospital. All the serum samples were screened for red cell antibody by both microcolumn agglutination systems, and any positive sample by either of the two systems was re-tested for antibody identification by both systems. We followed the instructions of each manufacturer and we used the LISS/Coombs microcolumn agglutination method for red cell antibody screening and identification. RESULTS: The rate of positive screening was 0.8% by the Ortho BioVue and 0.7% by the DiaMed-ID with insignificant differences between the two systems (P=0.439). The two systems showed excellent overall concordance in screening, 99.4%. Among the 9 samples with positive screening results, we found specific antibodies in only four samples. The rate of identification was 29% (2/7) by the Ortho BioVue and 33% (2/6) by the DiaMed-ID. CONCLUSION: Both methods were very comparable on performing red cell antibody detection and identification. Thus, they could both be used in laboratories for routine tests in such a way as to compensate for any shortcomings of the other method.
