BACKGROUND: In spite of a trend of automation for conducting most clinical laboratory tests, many blood banks are still dependent on manual tests. The aim of this study was to evaluate a full automation system called the Galileo (Immucor, USA) for conducting pretransfusion tests. METHODS: From August to October in 2009, a total of 3,002 cases of ABO-RhD typing and 1698 cases of antibody screening were compared between using manual tests and the Galileo system at Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. For the manual tests, we used the slide method for ABO-RhD typing and the anti-human immunoglobulin treated microplate method for antibody screening. The Galileo system used the microplate method for ABO-RhD typing and the solid-phase red cell adherence (SPRCA) method for antibody screening. We calculated the overall concordance rate and the false positive or negative rates regarding the manual method as a standard test and the Galileo system as a comparative test. RESULTS: When comparing 3,002 cases of ABO-RhD typing, 52 cases (1.7%) were retested. A discrepancy between the two tests remained in 17 cases (0.6%) after repetition, which led to a concordance rate of 99.4% (2,985/3,002). On the comparison of 1,698 cases of antibody screening, 54 cases (3.2%) were retested. A discrepancy between the two tests remained for 30 cases (1.8%) and the concordance rate was 98.2% (1,615/1,698). Among the 20 false negative cases (1.2%), nine were thought to be cold antibodies with no cases of confirmed warm antibody. CONCLUSION: The automated Galileo system and the preexisting manual tests showed very good concordance for ABO-RhD typing and antibody screening. The Galileo system can be used with confidence for routine pretransfusion tests.
Antibodies ; Automation ; Blood Banks ; Cold Temperature ; Immunoglobulins ; Korea ; Mass Screening