Emergency and Critical Care Department, IndyVet Emergency & Specialty Hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Purdue University College of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio). 2022 Sep;32(5):582-591. doi: 10.1111/vec.13219. Epub 2022 Jul 15.
To evaluate agreement between 2 standard laboratory (SL) methods and an immunochromatographic strip (ICS) method to crossmatch dogs receiving RBC transfusions. A second objective was to evaluate uninterpretable SL crossmatch results as compared to ICS in the presence of autoagglutination.
Prospective observational study (September 2018 to October 2019).
University teaching hospital.
Forty anemic dogs receiving RBC transfusions.
None.
All dogs received DEA 1-negative packed RBCs. Three crossmatch methods were evaluated against the same unit transfused to each dog: SL method performed at institutional laboratory (SL-I), SL method sent to a commercial laboratory (SL-C), and a commercially available point-of-care ICS method. Major and minor crossmatches were incompatible for 2.5%/7.5% of ICS tests, 82.5%/52.5% of SL-I tests, and 52.5%/27.5% of SL-C tests. Agreement between ICS and SL-C major (κ = 0.05) and minor (κ = 0.02) crossmatches and between ICS and SL-I major (κ = 0.009) and minor (κ = 0.03) crossmatches was slight. Agreement between SL-C and SL-I major (κ = -0.06) and minor (κ = -0.12) crossmatches was poor. Results of major and minor crossmatches were uninterpretable due to autoagglutination in 38%/38% for SL-I and 29%/18% for SL-C crossmatches. ICS method was interpretable for 93% (major) and 98% (minor) crossmatches. After exclusion of uninterpretable SL pairings, agreement still remained poor to slight between all tests. Only 1 of 40 dogs (2.5%; 95% confidence interval: <1.0%-13.2%) had an immediate immunological transfusion reaction.
Lack of agreement between all methodologies was noted. The high level of incompatibility predicted by SL methods despite lack of clinically relevant reactions suggests a high false incompatibility rate as compared to the ICS test. ICS testing was also able to give results more frequently in the face of autoagglutination. Further work is needed to investigate the ICS method's ability to predict clinically significant transfusion reactions.
评估 2 种标准实验室(SL)方法与免疫层析条(ICS)方法在交叉配血时对接受 RBC 输血的犬的一致性。第二个目的是评估在存在自身凝集的情况下,与 ICS 相比,无法解释的 SL 交叉配血结果。
前瞻性观察性研究(2018 年 9 月至 2019 年 10 月)。
大学教学医院。
40 只接受 RBC 输血的贫血犬。
无。
所有犬均接受 DEA 1 阴性的袋装 RBC。对每个犬输注的相同单位进行了 3 种交叉配血方法的评估:在机构实验室进行的 SL 方法(SL-I)、送到商业实验室的 SL 方法(SL-C)和市售的即时护理 ICS 方法。ICS 测试的主要和次要交叉配血不相容的比例为 2.5%/7.5%,SL-I 测试为 82.5%/52.5%,SL-C 测试为 52.5%/27.5%。ICS 与 SL-C 的主要(κ=0.05)和次要(κ=0.02)交叉配血以及 ICS 与 SL-I 的主要(κ=0.009)和次要(κ=0.03)交叉配血之间的一致性为轻微。SL-C 与 SL-I 的主要(κ=-0.06)和次要(κ=-0.12)交叉配血之间的一致性较差。由于 SL-I 的主要和次要交叉配血(38%/38%)和 SL-C(29%/18%)出现自身凝集,因此结果无法解释。ICS 方法对 93%(主要)和 98%(次要)交叉配血可进行解释。排除无法解释的 SL 配对后,所有检测之间的一致性仍然很差或轻微。40 只犬中只有 1 只(2.5%;95%置信区间:<1.0%-13.2%)发生了即时免疫性输血反应。
注意到所有方法之间存在不一致性。尽管缺乏临床相关反应,但 SL 方法预测的不相容性程度很高,表明与 ICS 测试相比,其假不相容率很高。ICS 测试在面对自身凝集时也能更频繁地给出结果。需要进一步研究 ICS 方法预测临床显著输血反应的能力。