Feline Recipient Screening

Abrams‐Ogg, Anthony

doi:10.1002/9781118933053.ch10

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several reasons can be postulated as to why the laboratory method was not reliable for the prediction of HTRs in transfusion‐naive cats. First, the method is subjective and, although technicians were trained in assessment for agglutination, human error is possible (Abrams‐Ogg ). Second, a large proportion of the cats had immune‐mediated haemolytic anaemia and many had spontaneous agglutination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Blood was obtained prior to transfusion from the recipient and also from the donor if fresh WB was administered or, if stored pRBCs were used, then a crossmatch segment was obtained. A major and a minor crossmatch (minorly modified versions of those described by Abrams‐Ogg ()) were performed by trained personnel (hereafter referred to as the laboratory method) as follows. Recipient and donor blood samples were spun at 664 × G for 5 minutes and plasma and the erythrocyte pellet were then separated.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prospective evaluation of the utility of cross‐matching prior to first transfusion in cats: 101 cases

Humm

Chan

2020

J of Small Animal Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To: (1) assess the frequency of crossmatch incompatibility in naïve feline blood transfusion recipients using two crossmatching methods, (2) measure the effect of crossmatch incompatibility on change in packed cell volume following transfusion, (3) assess the frequency of acute transfusion reactions and errors in blood transfusions in cats and (4) assess the impact of crossmatch incompatibility on the likelihood of transfusion reactions. Materials and MethOds:Cats being administered a first AB-matched transfusion in a veterinary teaching hospital were prospectively recruited for this observational study. A slide agglutination method and a commercial test were both used for major and minor crossmatching. We measured increase in packed cell volume at 12 hours after transfusion relative to the mass of red blood cells given per recipient bodyweight and recorded transfusion reactions.results: A total of 101 cats was included. Crossmatch incompatibility was common using the slide agglutination method (27% and 10% major and minor incompatibility, respectively), but less common with the commercial test (major and minor incompatibility both 4%). Crossmatch incompatibility with any method was not associated with less effective transfusion in terms of change in packed cell volume. Transfusion reactions occurred in 20 cats, most commonly febrile non-haemolytic transfusion reactions (n = 9) and haemolytic transfusion reactions (n = 7). The commercial test appeared to be most specific for predicting haemolytic transfusion reactions.clinical significance: Transfusion reactions were fairly common but not associated with increased mortality. Use of crossmatch-compatible blood did not lead to a greater increase in PCV at 12 hours.The commercial test may predict a haemolytic transfusion reaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective evaluation of the utility of cross‐matching prior to first transfusion in cats: 101 cases

Humm

Chan

2020

J of Small Animal Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A‐B typing of recipients and donors (as well as mates before breeding) is recommended to assure A‐B compatibility . A‐B matched transfusions are required to be effective, and ignoring A‐B blood typing can result in serious acute hemolytic transfusion reactions . A‐B mismatches can also induce neonatal isoerythrolysis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For decades, blood typing in cats has been recommended before the first transfusion and XM has been recommended before a second transfusion when given after more than 4 days . There is some evidence for the presence of other naturally occurring alloantibodies outside the AB blood group system, like anti‐Mik , but their importance at the time of a first transfusion has not been clearly defined clinically and experimentally .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some also perform crossmatching in addition to AB typing before a first transfusion due to the potential presence of naturally occurring alloantibodies outside of the AB system, such as anti‐Mik . However, crossmatching cats is technically restricted by the difficulty to obtain blood samples from recipient and donor cat before transfusion, limited availability of standardized crossmatching protocols and expertise to perform elaborate XM assays, and lack of any in‐clinic kits for crossmatching cats …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Detection of naturally occurring alloantibody by an in‐clinic antiglobulin‐enhanced and standard crossmatch gel column test in non‐transfused domestic shorthair cats

Goy‐Thollot

Nectoux

Guidetti³

et al. 2018

Veterinary Internal Medicne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Blood typing for the A and B antigens is essential and crossmatching testing is generally recommended before transfusing blood to cats. Objective To evaluate 2 crossmatch (XM) tests. Animals Forty‐nine healthy domestic shorthair cats that had not received a blood transfusion. Methods Prospective study. Blood samples were typed for AB using immunochromatographic and flow cytometric techniques. A gel column (GC) and a feline antiglobulin‐enhanced gel column (AGC) XM tests were used for crossmatching. Results The population included 34 type A, 13 B, and 2 AB cats, with concordant results (r = 1, P < .005) by flow cytometry and immunochromatographic strip kit. The plasma from type A cats had either no or weak anti‐B alloantibodies. The plasma of 12 of 13 type B cats contained strong anti‐A alloantibodies. For crossmatching, plasma to RBC pairings were prepared using the GC (n = 446) and AGC (n = 630) tests. Both methods showed compatibilities in 329 and incompatibilities in 102 pairings including all A‐B mismatches. Additionally 15 pairings showed agglutination by the AGC but not GC method. Fourteen incompatibilities outside the expected A‐B mismatches were only revealed by AGC. Conclusions and Clinical Importance AB typing using immunochromatographic strip is as accurate as laboratory flow cytometry. The 2 XM methods had good agreement with additional incompatibilities being recognized by the AGC XM beyond A‐B incompatibilities. In clinic, feline AB typing and sensitive XM test kits are available and recommended before each transfusion, although the clinical implications of incompatible XM test results and clinical benefits of such crossmatching have not been documented.

show abstract

Transfusion practice in Australia: an internet‐based survey

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To describe small animal transfusion practices in Australia, including access to blood products and frequency of pre‐transfusion compatibility testing and medication administration. Methods An online survey was disseminated to target Australian veterinarians treating dogs and cats. Information collected included demographics, sources of blood products, blood storage, recipient compatibility testing and administration of medications pre‐transfusion. Associations between the use of compatibility tests and premedications were assessed using the χ2 test. Significance was set at P < 0.05. Results A total of 199 Australian veterinarians were included; however, there was some attrition of respondents over the course of the survey. The majority of respondents were in general practice (n = 133/199). Access to fresh whole blood was commonly reported for dogs (n = 179/199) and cats (n = 131/198), whereas blood components were less commonly available (canine red blood cells [RBC], n = 52/199 and plasma, n = 157/199; feline RBC, n = 9/198 and plasma, n = 21/198). Most blood was sourced from the pets of owners affiliated with the veterinary clinic (n = 179/196). The respondents who did not blood type or crossmatch dogs were significantly more likely to use premedication than those who did these tests (both comparisons: P < 0.001). Likewise, the respondents who did not blood‐type cats were significantly more likely to use premedication (P = 0.003); however, there was no association between crossmatching and using premedication in cats (P = 0.183). Conclusion This is the first survey to describe transfusion practices across a variety of practice types throughout Australia. Future work is needed to determine how representative these results are of current transfusion practices across Australia, and if so, what can be done to optimise them.

show abstract

Feline Recipient Screening

Cited by 5 publications

References 74 publications

Prospective evaluation of the utility of cross‐matching prior to first transfusion in cats: 101 cases

Prospective evaluation of the utility of cross‐matching prior to first transfusion in cats: 101 cases

Detection of naturally occurring alloantibody by an in‐clinic antiglobulin‐enhanced and standard crossmatch gel column test in non‐transfused domestic shorthair cats

Transfusion practice in Australia: an internet‐based survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About