Comparison of Tube, Gel, and Immunochromatographic Strip Methods for Evaluation of Blood Transfusion Compatibility in Horses

D. Luethy, Sean D Owens, D. Stefanovski, R. Nolen-Walston, U. Giger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Assessment of blood compatibility, typically by tube agglutination (TUBE) and hemolysis crossmatch or, less commonly, by blood typing and alloantibody screening, often is performed before blood transfusion in horses. In contrast, gel column (GEL) and immunochromatographic strip (STRIP) techniques are preferred for compatibility testing in dogs and cats. Objective: To determine the accuracy of novel and standard crossmatch and typing methods. Animals: Thirty-eight healthy horses, previously blood typed and alloantibody screened. Methods: TUBE and GEL crossmatches were performed on 146 different recipient-donor pairs with 56 incompatible TUBE crossmatches. Crossmatches were compared by nonparametric area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) analyses. Horses also were blood typed by the novel immunochromatographic Ca typing STRIP. Results: Compared to TUBE crossmatch, GEL had excellent accuracy for agglutination (AUC-ROC = 0.903), but marginal accuracy for hemolysis (AUC-ROC = 0.639). Compared to macroscopic TUBE, microscopic TUBE had excellent accuracy for agglutination (AUC-ROC = 0.912). The predicted crossmatch compatibility based on blood type and alloantibody assay showed excellent accuracy compared to TUBE and GEL (AUC-ROC = 0.843 and 0.897, respectively). However, there were more recipient-donor pairs identified as incompatible by both TUBE and GEL than predicted by blood type and antibody screen, suggesting the presence of unidentified alloantibodies. A Ca typing STRIP exhibited 100% sensitivity and specificity for the 35 Ca+ and 3 Ca- horses tested. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: Gel column crossmatch and Ca typing immunochromatographic strip are simple and accurate methods to evaluate clinical blood compatibility.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1864-1871
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Veterinary Internal Medicine
Volume30
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

blood transfusion
Blood Transfusion
Horses
Isoantibodies
ROC Curve
Gels
Area Under Curve
gels
horses
agglutination
Agglutination
blood
blood groups
hemolysis
Hemolysis
methodology
Blood Grouping and Crossmatching
cats
screening
Cats

Keywords

  • Agglutination
  • Blood typing
  • Crossmatch
  • Hemolysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

Comparison of Tube, Gel, and Immunochromatographic Strip Methods for Evaluation of Blood Transfusion Compatibility in Horses. / Luethy, D.; Owens, Sean D; Stefanovski, D.; Nolen-Walston, R.; Giger, U.

In: Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Vol. 30, No. 6, 01.11.2016, p. 1864-1871.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bc2fb45a8d324893b5039972ed5165ac,
title = "Comparison of Tube, Gel, and Immunochromatographic Strip Methods for Evaluation of Blood Transfusion Compatibility in Horses",
abstract = "Background: Assessment of blood compatibility, typically by tube agglutination (TUBE) and hemolysis crossmatch or, less commonly, by blood typing and alloantibody screening, often is performed before blood transfusion in horses. In contrast, gel column (GEL) and immunochromatographic strip (STRIP) techniques are preferred for compatibility testing in dogs and cats. Objective: To determine the accuracy of novel and standard crossmatch and typing methods. Animals: Thirty-eight healthy horses, previously blood typed and alloantibody screened. Methods: TUBE and GEL crossmatches were performed on 146 different recipient-donor pairs with 56 incompatible TUBE crossmatches. Crossmatches were compared by nonparametric area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) analyses. Horses also were blood typed by the novel immunochromatographic Ca typing STRIP. Results: Compared to TUBE crossmatch, GEL had excellent accuracy for agglutination (AUC-ROC = 0.903), but marginal accuracy for hemolysis (AUC-ROC = 0.639). Compared to macroscopic TUBE, microscopic TUBE had excellent accuracy for agglutination (AUC-ROC = 0.912). The predicted crossmatch compatibility based on blood type and alloantibody assay showed excellent accuracy compared to TUBE and GEL (AUC-ROC = 0.843 and 0.897, respectively). However, there were more recipient-donor pairs identified as incompatible by both TUBE and GEL than predicted by blood type and antibody screen, suggesting the presence of unidentified alloantibodies. A Ca typing STRIP exhibited 100{\%} sensitivity and specificity for the 35 Ca+ and 3 Ca- horses tested. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: Gel column crossmatch and Ca typing immunochromatographic strip are simple and accurate methods to evaluate clinical blood compatibility.",
keywords = "Agglutination, Blood typing, Crossmatch, Hemolysis",
author = "D. Luethy and Owens, {Sean D} and D. Stefanovski and R. Nolen-Walston and U. Giger",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/jvim.14604",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "1864--1871",
journal = "Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine",
issn = "0891-6640",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Tube, Gel, and Immunochromatographic Strip Methods for Evaluation of Blood Transfusion Compatibility in Horses

AU - Luethy, D.

AU - Owens, Sean D

AU - Stefanovski, D.

AU - Nolen-Walston, R.

AU - Giger, U.

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Background: Assessment of blood compatibility, typically by tube agglutination (TUBE) and hemolysis crossmatch or, less commonly, by blood typing and alloantibody screening, often is performed before blood transfusion in horses. In contrast, gel column (GEL) and immunochromatographic strip (STRIP) techniques are preferred for compatibility testing in dogs and cats. Objective: To determine the accuracy of novel and standard crossmatch and typing methods. Animals: Thirty-eight healthy horses, previously blood typed and alloantibody screened. Methods: TUBE and GEL crossmatches were performed on 146 different recipient-donor pairs with 56 incompatible TUBE crossmatches. Crossmatches were compared by nonparametric area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) analyses. Horses also were blood typed by the novel immunochromatographic Ca typing STRIP. Results: Compared to TUBE crossmatch, GEL had excellent accuracy for agglutination (AUC-ROC = 0.903), but marginal accuracy for hemolysis (AUC-ROC = 0.639). Compared to macroscopic TUBE, microscopic TUBE had excellent accuracy for agglutination (AUC-ROC = 0.912). The predicted crossmatch compatibility based on blood type and alloantibody assay showed excellent accuracy compared to TUBE and GEL (AUC-ROC = 0.843 and 0.897, respectively). However, there were more recipient-donor pairs identified as incompatible by both TUBE and GEL than predicted by blood type and antibody screen, suggesting the presence of unidentified alloantibodies. A Ca typing STRIP exhibited 100% sensitivity and specificity for the 35 Ca+ and 3 Ca- horses tested. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: Gel column crossmatch and Ca typing immunochromatographic strip are simple and accurate methods to evaluate clinical blood compatibility.

AB - Background: Assessment of blood compatibility, typically by tube agglutination (TUBE) and hemolysis crossmatch or, less commonly, by blood typing and alloantibody screening, often is performed before blood transfusion in horses. In contrast, gel column (GEL) and immunochromatographic strip (STRIP) techniques are preferred for compatibility testing in dogs and cats. Objective: To determine the accuracy of novel and standard crossmatch and typing methods. Animals: Thirty-eight healthy horses, previously blood typed and alloantibody screened. Methods: TUBE and GEL crossmatches were performed on 146 different recipient-donor pairs with 56 incompatible TUBE crossmatches. Crossmatches were compared by nonparametric area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) analyses. Horses also were blood typed by the novel immunochromatographic Ca typing STRIP. Results: Compared to TUBE crossmatch, GEL had excellent accuracy for agglutination (AUC-ROC = 0.903), but marginal accuracy for hemolysis (AUC-ROC = 0.639). Compared to macroscopic TUBE, microscopic TUBE had excellent accuracy for agglutination (AUC-ROC = 0.912). The predicted crossmatch compatibility based on blood type and alloantibody assay showed excellent accuracy compared to TUBE and GEL (AUC-ROC = 0.843 and 0.897, respectively). However, there were more recipient-donor pairs identified as incompatible by both TUBE and GEL than predicted by blood type and antibody screen, suggesting the presence of unidentified alloantibodies. A Ca typing STRIP exhibited 100% sensitivity and specificity for the 35 Ca+ and 3 Ca- horses tested. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: Gel column crossmatch and Ca typing immunochromatographic strip are simple and accurate methods to evaluate clinical blood compatibility.

KW - Agglutination

KW - Blood typing

KW - Crossmatch

KW - Hemolysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84992378354&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84992378354&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jvim.14604

DO - 10.1111/jvim.14604

M3 - Article

C2 - 27770509

AN - SCOPUS:84992378354

VL - 30

SP - 1864

EP - 1871

JO - Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine

SN - 0891-6640

IS - 6

ER -