Servizio di Medicina Trasfusionale ed Immunoematologia, Azienda Ospedaliera Civile Maria Paternò Arezzo, Ragusa, Italy.
Blood Transfus. 2007 Jan;5(1):33-40. doi: 10.2450/2007.0022-06.
The aim of this study was to compare the routine use of two automated systems (OrthoAutoVue Innova, microcolumn, and Immucor Galileo, solid phase) for the screening and identification of irregular red blood cell alloantibodies in samples, analysed in our Transfusion Service during 6 months of normal activity. The study focused particularly on an evaluation of the repeatability of the screening tests, the identification of antibody specificities and the identification of antibodies in samples showing discordant results.
Overall 2,229 samples from potential blood donors (A), multiply transfused patients with blood disorders (DH), potential transfusion recipients (TS), and external cases (E) were studied. The protocols were carried out according to the manufacturers recommendations.
The screening tests detected 78 samples that were positive with both systems, while 18 were positive only with Immucor and 11 only with Ortho (thus, overall, Immucor detected 96 positive samples and Ortho 89 positive samples). The use of the respective identification panels enabled us to identify the antibodies in 65 samples with Immucor and in 61 samples with the Ortho system; 74 antibodies were identified with Immucor (55 with a single specificity and 19 with mixed specificities) and 68 antibodies with Ortho (51 and 17, respectively). In the remaining cases (31 samples for Immucor and 28 for Ortho), the antibody specificity was not identified. The two systems were found to be essentially similar. The Immucor system revealed a greater number of antibodies, mainly because of its greater sensitivity at detecting anti-D antibodies.
Both systems showed a repeatability of over 85%, demonstrating that automation of immunohaematological tests is advantageous. The specificity of the antibody was identified in 68% of the samples. Furthermore, using the two systems led to the identification of ten new antibodies (6 anti-D, 2 anti-E, 1 anti Le(a), and 1 anti-Vel), which would not have been detected had only one of the two methods been used.
本研究旨在比较两种自动化系统（OrthoAutoVue Innova 微柱和 Immucor Galileo 固相）在正常活动期间对 6 个月内我们输血科分析的样本中不规则红细胞同种异体抗体进行筛选和鉴定的常规使用。该研究特别侧重于评估筛选试验的重复性、鉴定抗体特异性以及鉴定显示不一致结果的样本中的抗体。
共研究了 2229 份潜在献血者（A）、多发性血液疾病输血患者（DH）、潜在输血受者（TS）和外部病例（E）的样本。方案按照制造商的建议进行。
筛选试验检测到两种系统均呈阳性的 78 个样本，而仅 Immucor 阳性的 18 个样本和仅 Ortho 阳性的 11 个样本（因此，Immucor 总共检测到 96 个阳性样本，Ortho 检测到 89 个阳性样本）。使用各自的鉴定试剂盒，我们能够在 65 个 Immucor 样本和 61 个 Ortho 系统样本中鉴定出抗体；在 Immucor 鉴定出 74 种抗体（55 种具有单一特异性，19 种具有混合特异性），在 Ortho 鉴定出 68 种抗体（51 种和 17 种）。在剩余的病例（31 个 Immucor 和 28 个 Ortho）中，未鉴定出抗体特异性。两种系统基本相似。Immucor 系统显示出更多的抗体，主要是因为其在检测抗-D 抗体时具有更高的灵敏度。
两种系统的重复性均超过 85%，表明免疫血液学检测自动化具有优势。68%的样本中鉴定出了抗体的特异性。此外，使用两种系统共鉴定出了 10 种新抗体（6 种抗-D、2 种抗-E、1 种抗-Le(a)和 1 种抗-Vel），如果只使用两种方法中的一种，这些抗体将无法被检测到。
