Korean J Blood Transfus.  2020 Aug;31(2):131-140. 10.17945/kjbt.2020.31.2.131.

Evaluation of the Automated Analyzer AutoVue Innova for Blood Group Typing: Clinical Implementation at a Tertiary Hospital over 2 Years

• Ryu SE
• Lee HJ
• Kim H
• Shin KH
• Kim HH

• KMID: 2505398
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.17945/kjbt.2020.31.2.131

Abstract

Background
An increasing number of blood banks use an automated analyzer in ABO blood typing to reduce the high workload and impact of human error. On the other hand, the automated system often causes ABO discrepancies, where cell and serum typing do not match. Hence, the manual method is used for confirmation. This study evaluated the appropriateness of retesting with the manual method. In addition, the causes of ABO discrepancies were analyzed.
Methods
A total of 77,590 blood samples were tested with the AutoVue Innova for ABO typing. Among them, 1280 samples were retested manually due to ABO discrepancies. The causes of the discrepancies were analyzed further through additional tests. The serum reaction grades in both methods were compared.
Results
ABO typing of 76,906 samples (99.12%), which included 596 manually confirmed samples could be confirmed by the AutoVue system, while 403 samples (0.52%) continued to yield discrepant results. Weak serum reactions in the AutoVue system were observed, as previously reported. One hundred and thirty samples (66.7%), which were graded 0.5+ in the automated analyzer, yielded a negative serum reaction in the manual method, showing a greater serum reaction with the AutoVue system than with the manual method.
Conclusion
The AutoVue Innova performs reliably for blood typing. On the other hand, the manual method is still useful as retesting to address the ABO discrepancies and weak or strong serum reactions. In particular, it is important to confirm samples with 0.5+ grade serum reactions manually.

Keyword

ABO typing; ABO discrepancy; Automated analyzer; Manual method