Lab Med Online.  2019 Oct;9(4):218-223. 10.3343/lmo.2019.9.4.218.

Evaluation of the Automated Cross-Matching Instrument, ORTHO VISION, for Use in Blood Banks

• Koo M
• Lim J
• Kim SY
• Kim JM
• Koo SH
• Kwon GC

• KMID: 2458681
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3343/lmo.2019.9.4.218

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Automated systems are used widely for pre-transfusion tests in blood banks, in an attempt to reduce effort and human error. We evaluated the clinical performance of an automated blood bank system, ORTHO VISION (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Switzerland), for blood cross-matching.
METHODS
Saline cross-matching was performed for 93 tests using 56 samples. Coombs cross-matching was performed for 400 tests using 166 samples. Saline cross-matching was compared for the automated ORTHO VISION and manual tube methods. Coombs cross-matching was compared for the automated ORTHO VISION and manual column agglutination technique (CAT) methods. The evaluation of 32 antibody-positive samples using the automated ORTHO VISION and manual CAT methods was compared by performing 97 cross-matching tests. Additionally, the ORTHO VISION efficiency and carryover were evaluated.
RESULTS
The concordance rate of the saline cross-matching results between the manual method and automated ORTHO VISION was 100%. The concordance rate of coombs cross-matching results between manual CAT and automated ORTHO VISION was 97.9%. The concordance rate of cross-matching for antibody positive samples between manual CAT and the automated ORTHO VISION was 97.9%. Coombs cross-matching was efficient using ORTHO VISION, whereas saline cross-matching was efficient using the tube manual method.
CONCLUSIONS
ORTHO VISION showed reliable results for cross-matching and was more efficient than manual CAT for coombs cross-matching. Thus, ORTHO VISION can be used for pre-transfusion tests in blood banks.

Keyword

Cross-matching; Automation; ORTHO VISION

MeSH Terms

Agglutination
Animals
Automation
Blood Banks*
Cats
Humans
Methods

Reference

1. Han KS, Park KU, Song EY. Transfusion medicine. 4th ed. Seoul: Korea Med Books;2014. p. 280–286.

2. Dada A, Beck D, Schmitz G. Automation and data processing in blood banking using the Ortho AutoVue® Innova System. Transfus Med Hemother. 2007; 34:341–346.

3. Shin JW, Shin WY, Lee DL. Comparison of ABO blood group typing between automated blood bank analyzer IH-500 and manual method. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2017; 28:126–133.

4. Malomgré W, Neumeister B. Recent and future trends in blood group typing. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2009; 393:1443–1451.

5. Armbruster DA, Overcash DR, Reyes J. Clinical chemistry laboratory automation in the 21st century-Amat Victoria curam (victory loves careful preparation). Clin Biochem Rev. 2014; 35:143–153.

6. Lim YA. Evaluation of DiaCell ABO red blood cell reagents as a reverse typing for ABO blood group. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2017; 28:58–66.

7. Park Y, Lim J, Ko Y, Kwon K, Koo S, Kim J. Evaluation of IH-1000 for automated ABO-Rh typing and irregular antibody screening. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2012; 23:127–135.

8. South SF, Casina TS, Li L. Exponential error reduction in pretransfusion testing with automation. Transfusion. 2012; 52:81S–87S.

9. Shin SY, Kwon KC, Koo SH, Park JW, Ko CS, Song JH, et al. Evaluation of two automated instruments for pre-transfusion testing: AutoVue Innova and Techno TwinStation. Korean J Lab Med. 2008; 28:214–220.

10. Weisbach V, Ziener A, Zimmermann R, Glaser A, Zingsem J, Eckstein R. Comparison of the performance of four microtube column agglutination systems in the detection of red cell alloantibodies. Transfusion. 1999; 39:1045–1050.

11. Aysola A, Wheeler L, Brown R, Denham R, Colavecchia C, Pavenski K, et al. Multi-center evaluation of the automated immunohematology instrument, the ORTHO VISION analyzer. Lab Med. 2017; 48:29–38.

12. Bajpai M, Kaur R, Gupta E. Automation in Immunohematology. Asian J Transfus Sci. 2012; 6:140–144.

13. Garratty G. Advances in red blood cell immunology 1960 to 2009. Transfusion. 2010; 50:526–535.

14. Milkins C, Berryman J, Cantwell C, Elliott C, Haggas R, Jones J, et al. Guidelines for pre-transfusion compatibility procedures in blood transfusion laboratories. Transfus Med. 2013; 23:3–35.

15. Chaffe B, Jones J, Milkins C, Taylor C, Asher D, Glencross H, et al. UK Transfusion Laboratory Collaborative: recommended minimum standards for hospital transfusion laboratories. Transfus Med. 2009; 19:156–158.

16. Koh YE, Yoon J, Kwon SH, Kim YH, Choi JY, Kim JY, et al. Evaluation of the automated blood bank instrument QWALYS-3 for cross-matching tests. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2014; 25:218–225.

17. Bhagwat SN, Sharma JH, Jose J, Modi CJ. Comparison between conventional and automated techniques for blood grouping and crossmatching: experience from a tertiary care centre. J Lab Physicians. 2015; 7:96–102.

18. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. User protocol for evaluation of qualitative test performance; Approved guideline-Second edition, EP12-A2. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute;2008.

19. Park Y, Kim SY, Koo SH, Lim J, Kim JM, Kwon GC, et al. Evaluation of the automated blood bank systems IH-500 and VISION Max for ABO-RhD blood typing and unexpected antibody screening. Lab Med Online. 2017; 7:170–175.

20. Lee SH, Jeong J, Jeong US, Kim MS, Jeong YJ, Wee JH, et al. Experience with the automatic blood bank instrument AutoVue Innova. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2008; 19:43–48.