Novaretti M C, Silveira E J, Filho E C, Dorlhiac-Llacer P E, Chamone D A
Fundação Pró- Sangue Hemocentro de São Paulo, Hematology/ Hemotherapy Department, University of São Paulo, Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, 155 - 1 degrees andar - São Paulo, SP - Brazil 05403-000; Eduardo Jens.
Immunohematology. 2000;16(4):138-41.
There are several methods for antibody detection and each technique has advantages and limitations. We compared the performance of the tube (polyethylene glycol-indirect antiglobulin test [PEG-IAT]) and gel test technique for antibody identification. From January to May 1999, we performed antibody screening tests by gel and tube techniques on 10,123 random blood samples submitted to our reference laboratory. Six hundred and twenty-eight (6.2%) reactive samples were tested for antibody specificity by both methods. One hundred and ninety-six were reactive only by gel: 25 anti-D, 33 anti-C, 76 anti-E, 13 anti-c, 5 anti-e, 18 anti-K, 7 anti-Jka, 2 anti-Dia, 3 anti-S, 8 combination Rh antibodies (1 with anti- K), and 6 other antibody specificities. Two samples were reactive only by PEG-IAT: 1 anti-K and 1 anti-Dia. Four hundred and thirty were positive by the two methods: 156 anti-D, 9 anti-C, 68 anti-E, 15 anti-c, 6 anti-e, 61 anti-K, 12 anti-Jka, 17 anti-Dia, 5 anti-S, 73 combination Rh antibodies (2 with anti-K), and 8 other antibody specificities. Based on this study, the gel test is more sensitive (p <.01) than the tube test for identifying potentially clinically significant antibodies.
有几种抗体检测方法,每种技术都有其优点和局限性。我们比较了试管法(聚乙二醇间接抗球蛋白试验[PEG-IAT])和凝胶试验技术在抗体鉴定方面的性能。1999年1月至5月,我们对提交到我们参考实验室的10123份随机血样采用凝胶法和试管法进行了抗体筛查试验。对628份(6.2%)呈反应性的样本用两种方法进行了抗体特异性检测。196份样本仅在凝胶法检测中呈反应性:25份抗-D、33份抗-C、76份抗-E、13份抗-c、5份抗-e、18份抗-K、7份抗-Jka、2份抗-Dia、3份抗-S、8份联合Rh抗体(1份伴有抗-K)以及6份其他抗体特异性。2份样本仅在PEG-IAT检测中呈反应性:1份抗-K和1份抗-Dia。430份样本在两种方法检测中均呈阳性:156份抗-D、9份抗-C、68份抗-E、15份抗-c、6份抗-e、61份抗-K、12份抗-Jka、17份抗-Dia、5份抗-S、73份联合Rh抗体(2份伴有抗-K)以及8份其他抗体特异性。基于这项研究,在鉴定潜在临床意义的抗体方面,凝胶试验比试管试验更敏感(p<.01)。