Ann Lab Med 2017; 37(2): 117-123  
Comparative Analysis of Clinical Samples Showing Weak Serum Reaction on AutoVue System Causing ABO Blood Typing Discrepancies
Su Yeon Jo, M.D.1, Ju Mi Lee, M.D.1, Hye Lim Kim, M.D.2, Kyeong Hwa Sin, M.D.2, Hyeon Ji Lee, M.D.1, Chulhun Ludgerus Chang, M.D.1, and Hyung-Hoi Kim, M.D.2
Department of Laboratory Medicine1, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan; Department of Laboratory Medicine2, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea
Correspondence to: Hyung-Hoi Kim
Department of Laboratory Medicine and BioMedical Informatics Unit, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Director of Biomedical Research Institute, Director of Pusan National Univestiy Hospital Clinical Trial Center, Pusan National University Hospital, 179 Gudeok-ro, Seo-gu, Busan 49241, Korea
Tel: +82-51-240-7414 Fax: +82-51-247-6560 E-mail: hhkim@pusan.ac.kr
Received: May 18, 2016; Revised: September 1, 2016; Accepted: December 7, 2016; Published online: March 1, 2017.
© The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine. All rights reserved.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Background: ABO blood typing in pre-transfusion testing is a major component of the high workload in blood banks that therefore requires automation. We often experienced discrepant results from an automated system, especially weak serum reactions. We evaluated the discrepant results by the reference manual method to confirm ABO blood typing.
Methods: In total, 13,113 blood samples were tested with the AutoVue system; all samples were run in parallel with the reference manual method according to the laboratory protocol.
Results: The AutoVue system confirmed ABO blood typing of 12,816 samples (97.7%), and these results were concordant with those of the manual method. The remaining 297 samples (2.3%) showed discrepant results in the AutoVue system and were confirmed by the manual method. The discrepant results involved weak serum reactions (<2+ reaction grade), extra serum reactions, samples from patients who had received stem cell transplants, ABO subgroups, and specific system error messages. Among the 98 samples showing ≤1+ reaction grade in the AutoVue system, 70 samples (71.4%) showed a normal serum reaction (≥2+ reaction grade) with the manual method, and 28 samples (28.6%) showed weak serum reaction in both methods.
Conclusions: ABO blood tying of 97.7% samples could be confirmed by the AutoVue system and a small proportion (2.3%) needed to be re-evaluated by the manual method. Samples with a 2+ reaction grade in serum typing do not need to be evaluated manually, while those with ≤1+ reaction grade do.
Keywords: ABO typing, Automated system, AutoVue system, Manual method, Discrepancy


This Article

e-submission

Archives

Indexed/Covered by