Chopra Parul, Bhardwaj Sunanda, Samkaria Ajay, Amoli Asha, Arora Anil
Department of Laboratory Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Department of Hematology and Immunology, Dr. Lal PathLabs Ltd., National Reference Lab, New Delhi, India.
J Lab Physicians. 2021 Jul 15;14(2):132-138. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1732808. eCollection 2022 Jun.
A variation in the measurement of ABO antibody titer has been seen among different laboratories due to lack of standardization. In our study, we aim to evaluate automated ABO isoagglutinin titer measurements by erythrocytes magnetized technology (EMT) and compare with conventional tube technique (TT). We performed ABO isoagglutinin titration on samples received in a reference laboratory during a period of 2 months. A total of 134 tests for immunoglobulin G (IgG) titer and 116 for immunoglobulin M (IgM) for anti-A or anti-B were included in the study. Samples were processed for ABO isoagglutination titers by both TT and EMT by QWALYS-3 (DIAGAST, France). Microsoft Excel was used to compile data, for all calculations, and to draw graphs and plots. The number and percentage of cases within ±1, ±2, or ±3 titer difference (TT-EMT) were calculated. Median titers and their ranges obtained by EMT were higher or equal to those by TT for all IgM and IgG ABO-antibodies in all blood group (BGs), except anti-A IgM in (BG) O that was lower by EMT (32 [4:128]) than TT (48 [8:256]). One twenty one (121/134, 90.3%) cases of IgG titer showed an agreement by both methods (within ± one titer difference). One hundred seven cases (107/116, 92.2%) for IgM titer were within one titer difference by both the methods. Results of titration by EMT-based automated instrument QWALYS-3 and conventional TT may vary by one titer dilution in the majority of cases. Use of consistent method for patient management is, therefore, advised.
由于缺乏标准化,不同实验室之间ABO抗体效价的测量存在差异。在我们的研究中,我们旨在评估通过红细胞磁化技术(EMT)进行的ABO同种凝集素效价自动化测量,并与传统试管技术(TT)进行比较。
我们对参考实验室在2个月内收到的样本进行了ABO同种凝集素滴定。该研究共纳入了134次抗A或抗B免疫球蛋白G(IgG)效价检测和116次免疫球蛋白M(IgM)效价检测。样本通过法国DIAGAST公司的QWALYS-3采用TT和EMT两种方法进行ABO同种凝集效价检测。使用Microsoft Excel来整理数据、进行所有计算以及绘制图表。计算了效价差异(TT - EMT)在±1、±2或±3范围内的病例数及百分比。
除了O型血中抗A IgM外,所有血型(BG)中所有IgM和IgG ABO抗体通过EMT获得的中位效价及其范围均高于或等于TT法,O型血中抗A IgM通过EMT(32 [4:128])检测到的效价比TT法(48 [8:256])低。121例(121/134,90.3%)IgG效价病例通过两种方法检测结果一致(效价差异在±1范围内)。107例(107/116,92.2%)IgM效价病例通过两种方法检测效价差异在±1范围内。
基于EMT的自动化仪器QWALYS - 3和传统TT法的滴定结果在大多数情况下可能相差一个效价稀释度。因此,建议在患者管理中使用一致的方法。