The Suitability of Compatibility Test Results with Gel Method between Diagnostic Grifols Gel Coombs and Diamed-Identification

Tigor Pandapotan Sianturi, Betty Agustina Tambunan

Abstract


A compatibility test as part of a pre-transfusion test is mandatory to ensure blood compatibility between patients and
donors. Diamed-ID as the first gel-based product is commonly used as a reference for the compatibility test. The presence of
new products such as DG Gel Coombs encourages research to compare them with reference methods. This study aimed to
analyze the suitability of DG Gel Coombs to Diamed-ID in the compatibility test with the same sample. This cross-sectional
analytic observational study was conducted during November 2017-February 2018 at the Blood Transfusion Unit Dr.
Soetomo Hospital, Surabaya using blood samples (n=40), which met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Simultaneous
testing of the two products was according to the manufacturing requirements of each product (using different LISS reagents
for red blood cell suspensions and centrifugation arrangements). The suitability of results was tested with Cohen's kappa
and significant differences with McNemar. There was a minimum suitability of DG Gel Coombs to Diamed-ID for major
compatibility tests, κ 0.307 (95% CI: -0.029-0.643), significance 0.007 (p < 0.05) and moderate for minor, κ 0,678 (95% CI:
0.454-0.903), significance <0.0001 (p < 0.05). McNemar's significance was 0.016 (p < 0.05) for major compatibility test and
0.031 (p < 0.05) for minor. Referring to Diamed-ID's results, false negatives were found on DG Gel Coombs for major
compatibility tests (n=7) and minor (n=6). The suitability of results from DG Gel Coombs and Diamed-ID is not strong for
compatibility testing.


Keywords


Compatibility test, gel method, diagnostic Grifols Gel Coombs, Diamed-Identification

Full Text:

PDF

References


Blanchet O, Bonte L, Bouhabib H, Chaillet P. Blood

transfusion. A manual for doctors, nurses, and

laboratory technicians. Paris, Medecins, Sans

Frontieres, 2010; 11-64.

Maclvor D, Yazer M. Transfusion support in sickle cell

anemia. Transfusion Medicine Update, Institute for

Transfusion Medicine, 2007; 1-2.

Ozsoylu S. ABC of blood transfusion in patients with

thalassemia major. Medical Journal of Islamic World

Academy of Sciences, 2014; 22(4): 175-6.

UTDRS RSUD Dr Soetomo. Data permintaan darah

transfusi dan komponennya. Surabaya, UTDRS RSUD

Dr Soetomo, 2016.

Quienly E. Immunohematology principles and

rd practice. 3 Ed., Washington DC, Lippincot Williams &

Wilkins, 2011; 107-18.

th 6. Norfolk D. Handbook of transfusion medicine. 5 Ed.,

United Kingdom Blood Service,TSO, 2013; 5-11.

Lane D. Pre-transfusion testing. Clinical guide to

transfusion. Canadian Blood Service, 2014; 1-3.

Delaney M, Wendel S, Bercovitz RS, Cid J, Cohn C, et al.

Transfusion reactions: Prevention, diagnosis, and

treatment. The Lancet, 2016; 388(10061): 2825-36.

Westhoff C. Red cell immunology and compatibility

th testing. Rossi's principle transfusion. 5 Ed., New York,

John Wiley & Son, 2016; 193-205.

th 10. McCullough J. Transfusion medicine. 4 Ed., John Wiley

& Son, 2017; 220-3.

EPHTI. The crossmatch (compatibility testing).

s t In: Immunohaemotology. 1 Ed., Misganaw

Birhaneselassie, 2004; 79-84.

Malyska H, Weiland D. The gel test. Laboratory

Medicine, 1994; 25(2): 81-5.

Cid J, Nogues N, Montero R, Hurtado M, Briega A,

Parra R. Comparison of three microtube column

agglutination systems for antibody screening: DG Gel,

DiaMed-ID and Ortho BioVue. Transfusion Medicine,

; 16(2): 131-6.

Swarup D, Dhot P, Kotwal J, Verma A. Comparative

study of blood cross matching using conventional

tube and gel method. MJAFI, 2008; (64): 129-30.

Mehta N, Chakraborty I, Rane M, Ambre V. Verification

of column agglutination technology with conventional

tube technology for naturally occurring antibody

titration. Global Journal of Transfusion Medicine, 2016;

(2): 46.

Taylor J, Hyare J, Stelfox P, Williams M, Lees R, Maley M.

Multi-centre evaluation of pre-transfusional routine

tests using 8-column format gel cards (DG Gel®).

Transfusion Medicine, 2011; 21(2): 90-8.

Hustinx H, Munger E, Lejon Crottet S. Comparison of

sensitivity and specificity of the Bio-Rad ID Cards

LISS/Coombs with the Grifols Gel Coombs cards in a

manual approach. Switzerland, Interregional

Transfusion SRC Berne, 2016; 1.

Watkins J. Introduction to the science of statistics:

From theory to implementation. Preelimina, 2005;

-182,333-352.

Zammit V. A comparative study between antiglobulin

crossmatch and type and screen procedures for

compatibility testing. B.Sc. (Hons.) in Health Science,

; 52-94.

Diamed AG. Diamed-ID microtyping system ID Card

"LISS/Coombs" indirect and direct antiglobulin test.

Product Identification No 50531. Switzerland, Diamed

AG, 2008; 13-22.

Diagnostic Grifols. DG Gel Coombs. Katalog No

Spain, Diagnostic Grifols, 2010; 1-2.

McHugh M. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic.

Biochemia Medica, 2012; 22(3): 276-82.

Grey D, Connolly M, Erber W. Comparison of low ionic

diluents for use with the Diamed antiglobulin test.

Transfusion Medicine, 2002; 12: 63-9.

Majekodunmi S. A review on centrifugation in the

pharmaceutical industry. American Journal of

Biomedical Engineering, 2015; 5(2): 67-78.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24293/ijcpml.v27i1.1605

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.