[Evaluation of different cross-matching techniques in comparison to the tube agglutination method in dogs].

IF 0.8 4区 农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES
L Herter, C Weingart, N Merten, N Bock, B Kohn
{"title":"[Evaluation of different cross-matching techniques in comparison to the tube agglutination method in dogs].","authors":"L Herter, C Weingart, N Merten, N Bock, B Kohn","doi":"10.17236/sat00345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cross-matching is used to determine the serological compatibility of donor and recipient blood. This procedure is used to detect possible antibodies against the donor's erythrocytes, thereby reducing the risk of immunological transfusion reactions. Various methods are available for cross-matching: In addition to the tube agglutination method, which is often viewed as a reference method, gel and immunochromatographic methods are available. In this study, a gel tube method, an antiglobulin-enhanced gel tube method, and an immunochromatographic method were evaluated in comparison to the tube agglutination method in 28 different major cross-matches. The evaluation resulted in 85,7 % agreement between the antiglobulin-enhanced gel tube method, in 60,7 % agreement between the gel tube method and in 35,7 % agreement between the immunochromatographic method and the tube agglutination method. Considering the macroscopically positive test results alone, the agreement between the tube agglutination method and the antiglobulin-enhanced gel tube method was 100 %, the gel tube method 62,5 % and with the immunochromatographic 0 %. Using the antiglobulin-enhanced gel tube method, 4/9 weakly positive cross-matches, which were positive with a microscopic degree of agglutination of 1+ - 2+ using the tube agglutination method, were compatible. In all other cross-matches with a higher degree of agglutination, the results were consistent with those of the tube agglutination method. Transfusion of incompatible blood products may result in hemolytic transfusion reactions. However, the clinical relevance of microscopically weakly positive cross-matches is unclear. The application of the various test kits took significantly less time compared to the tube agglutination procedure. Due to the strong agreement and reduction in required time, the antiglobulin-enhanced gel tube method offers a good alternative to the reference method, especially in emergency situations. On the other hand, there was only a weak agreement between the gel tube and no agreement between the immunochromatographic method and the reference method.</p>","PeriodicalId":21544,"journal":{"name":"Schweizer Archiv fur Tierheilkunde","volume":"167 2","pages":"109-119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schweizer Archiv fur Tierheilkunde","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17236/sat00345","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Cross-matching is used to determine the serological compatibility of donor and recipient blood. This procedure is used to detect possible antibodies against the donor's erythrocytes, thereby reducing the risk of immunological transfusion reactions. Various methods are available for cross-matching: In addition to the tube agglutination method, which is often viewed as a reference method, gel and immunochromatographic methods are available. In this study, a gel tube method, an antiglobulin-enhanced gel tube method, and an immunochromatographic method were evaluated in comparison to the tube agglutination method in 28 different major cross-matches. The evaluation resulted in 85,7 % agreement between the antiglobulin-enhanced gel tube method, in 60,7 % agreement between the gel tube method and in 35,7 % agreement between the immunochromatographic method and the tube agglutination method. Considering the macroscopically positive test results alone, the agreement between the tube agglutination method and the antiglobulin-enhanced gel tube method was 100 %, the gel tube method 62,5 % and with the immunochromatographic 0 %. Using the antiglobulin-enhanced gel tube method, 4/9 weakly positive cross-matches, which were positive with a microscopic degree of agglutination of 1+ - 2+ using the tube agglutination method, were compatible. In all other cross-matches with a higher degree of agglutination, the results were consistent with those of the tube agglutination method. Transfusion of incompatible blood products may result in hemolytic transfusion reactions. However, the clinical relevance of microscopically weakly positive cross-matches is unclear. The application of the various test kits took significantly less time compared to the tube agglutination procedure. Due to the strong agreement and reduction in required time, the antiglobulin-enhanced gel tube method offers a good alternative to the reference method, especially in emergency situations. On the other hand, there was only a weak agreement between the gel tube and no agreement between the immunochromatographic method and the reference method.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Schweizer Archiv fur Tierheilkunde
Schweizer Archiv fur Tierheilkunde 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
46
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: Das Schweizer Archiv für Tierheilkunde ist die älteste veterinärmedizinische Zeitschrift der Welt (gegründet 1816). Es ist das wissenschaftliche und praxisbezogene offizielle Publikationsorgan der Gesellschaft Schweizer Tierärztinnen und Tierärzte.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信