Preliminary evaluation of a gel tube agglutination major cross‐match method in dogs

Villarnovo, Dania; Burton, Shelley A.; Horney, Barbara S.; MacKenzie, Allan; Vanderstichel, Raphaël

doi:10.1111/vcp.12374

Cited by 15 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If they are done, antiglobulin is not used, whereas in human medicine cross‐match testing utilizing antiglobulins is routinely done before the first and any subsequent transfusion events . The difference is related to the presence or absence of naturally occurring alloantibodies, distribution of blood groups, antigenicity of RBC membrane antigens, and availability, sensitivity, and specificity of cross‐match tests . In our prospective clinical study of transfused dogs and canine blood donors, we documented the lack of any pretransfusion alloantibodies and the frequent alloimmunization post‐transfusion in dogs receiving DEA 1 ‐matched transfusions based upon antiglobulin‐enhanced cross‐match tests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A gel tube‐based cross‐match kit has been available for in‐clinic use. It recently was assessed in a limited study, but transfused patients either were not studied or no alloantibodies were detected . Moreover, an antiglobulin‐enhanced immunochromatographic strip kit, similar to the direct antiglobulin test (DAT), recently has been introduced for cross‐matching dogs, but has not been assessed in clinical settings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pre‐ and Post‐Transfusion Alloimmunization in Dogs Characterized by 2 Antiglobulin‐Enhanced Cross‐match Tests

Goy‐Thollot

Giger

Boisvineau

et al. 2017

Veterinary Internal Medicne

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWhen dogs are transfused, blood compatibility testing varies widely but may include dog erythrocyte antigen (DEA) 1 typing and rarely cross‐matching.ObjectivesProspective study to examine naturally occurring alloantibodies against red blood cells (RBCs) and alloimmunization by transfusion using 2 antiglobulin‐enhanced cross‐match tests.AnimalsEighty client‐owned anemic, 72 donor, and 7 control dogs.MethodsAll dogs were typed for DEA 1 and some also for DEA 4 and DEA 7. Major cross‐match tests with canine antiglobulin‐enhanced immunochromatographic strip and gel columns were performed 26–129 days post‐transfusion (median, 39 days); some dogs had an additional early evaluation 11–22 days post‐transfusion (median, 16 days). Plasma from alloimmunized recipients was cross‐matched against RBCs from 34 donor and control dogs.ResultsThe 2 cross‐match methods gave entirely concordant results. All 126 pretransfusion cross‐match results for the 80 anemic recipients were compatible, but 54 dogs died or were lost to follow up. Among the 26 recipients with follow‐up, 1 dog accidently received DEA 1‐mismatched blood and became cross‐match‐incompatible post‐transfusion. Eleven of the 25 DEA 1‐matched recipients (44%) became incompatible against other RBC antigens. No naturally occurring anti‐DEA 7 alloantibodies were detected in DEA 7− dogs.Conclusions and clinical importanceThe antiglobulin‐enhanced immunochromatographic strip cross‐match and laboratory gel column techniques identified no naturally occurring alloantibodies against RBC antigens, but a high degree of post‐transfusion alloimmunization in dogs. Cross‐matching is warranted in any dog that has been previously transfused independent of initial DEA 1 typing and cross‐matching results before the first transfusion event.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pre‐ and Post‐Transfusion Alloimmunization in Dogs Characterized by 2 Antiglobulin‐Enhanced Cross‐match Tests

Goy‐Thollot

Giger

Boisvineau

et al. 2017

Veterinary Internal Medicne

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This lower agreement with the rapid gel assay also reflects the greater subjectivity of interpretation with this technique, which was noted to be a major caveat in another study. 9 It was not considered a major flaw of the assay in the current study, as discrepancies between evaluators were most often between 2 grades within the same compatibility/incompatibility categories and would overall have little effect on the choice of a donor. Finally, the very simple protocol F I G U R E 3 Grade agreement between microgel and rapid gel assays.…”

Section: Rapid Gel Assay: Technique and Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 92%

Modified stall‐side crossmatch for transfusions in horses

Casenave

Leclère

Beauchamp

et al. 2019

Veterinary Internal Medicne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background After‐hours or out‐of‐clinic crossmatches are often limited by the lack of access to specialized material and technical expertise. Hypothesis/Objectives The goal was to adapt a stall‐side crossmatch test for pretransfusion evaluation in horses. Animals Twelve healthy mares (plasma and blood donors, teaching mares). Methods In a prospective study, blood from 12 mares was used to compare the results of 132 crossmatches performed with a rapid gel assay to crossmatches performed with a microgel column assay, and with predicted compatibilities based on blood types and detection of antibodies at a reference laboratory (microplate assay). The rapid gel assay protocol for dogs was adapted to decrease the formation of rouleaux that initially precluded equine erythrocytes migration through the gel. Results There was a good agreement between the rapid gel assay and the microgel assay as well as with the predicted compatibilities (κ > .6 for both). Agreement was higher between the microgel assay and the predicted compatibilities (κ = .8). The rapid gel assay failed to detect 6 predicted Aa incompatibilities (agglutinins‐related), 3 of which were also not detected with the microgel assay. Conclusions and Clinical Importance Based on these results, the modified rapid gel assay could be useful in settings when access to the microgel assay is not available. Discrepancies between both gel techniques and predicted compatibilities were most often low‐grade agglutination, which warrants further investigation to assess their clinical importance.

show abstract

“…Any degree of microscopic agglutination was considered positive, as reported in previous studies. 1,18 However, some authors and laboratories (both for horses and for small animals) have chosen to forgo the microscopic cross-match evaluation. 9,12 This decision was based on the high accuracy of microscopic tube agglutination compatibility scores when compared to standard tube macroscopic agglutination, indicating that gross or macroscopic evaluation is adequate for determining compatibility and that microscopic evaluation may not be necessary.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of cross-matching method for detection of DEA 7 blood incompatibility

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared 3 major cross-match (XM) tests to identify dog erythrocyte antigen (DEA) 7 blood incompatibilities in dogs as a result of anti-DEA 7 antibodies: gel (GEL), standard tube (TUBE) agglutination, and immunochromatography strips (STRIP). Blood samples from 42 dogs were typed for DEA 7; 2 tested DEA 7-positive (DEA 7+). The 40 DEA 7-negative (DEA 7-) plasma samples were cross-matched against the 2 DEA 7+ and 3 DEA 7-red blood cell (RBC) samples by GEL to identify samples with anti-DEA 7 antibodies. Twenty DEA 7-plasma samples without and with anti-DEA 7 antibodies were cross-matched with samples of the 2 DEA 7+ RBCs in a double-blind fashion using the TUBE and STRIP XM methods. GEL results were used as the reference method for comparison. To determine relationships between results, 2 × 2 tables were used. Cohen kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated between results of GEL and the other 2 methods. With GEL, 21 of 40 XM tests were positive and 19 of 40 negative for anti-DEA 7 antibodies. The same results were obtained by TUBE, whereas only 1 of 40 XM tests was positive by STRIP. There was a statistically significant relationship between results of GEL and TUBE (p < 0.000) with perfect agreement (κ = 1.000), but not between GEL and STRIP results (p = 1.000) in which agreement was equivalent to chance (κ = 0.0453). The GEL and TUBE XM tests, but not STRIP, are useful methods for identification of DEA 7 incompatibilities caused by anti-DEA 7 antibodies.

show abstract

Preliminary evaluation of a gel tube agglutination major cross‐match method in dogs

Cited by 15 publications

References 9 publications

Pre‐ and Post‐Transfusion Alloimmunization in Dogs Characterized by 2 Antiglobulin‐Enhanced Cross‐match Tests

Pre‐ and Post‐Transfusion Alloimmunization in Dogs Characterized by 2 Antiglobulin‐Enhanced Cross‐match Tests

Modified stall‐side crossmatch for transfusions in horses

Comparison of cross-matching method for detection of DEA 7 blood incompatibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About