Identifying D-positive donors using a second automated testing platform

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Immunohematology

American National Red Cross

Subject: Medical Laboratory Technology

GET ALERTS SUBSCRIBE

ISSN: 0894-203X
eISSN: 1930-3955

DESCRIPTION

4
Reader(s)
4
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Archive
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Volume 30 (2014)
Volume 29 (2013)
Volume 28 (2012)
Volume 27 (2011)
Volume 26 (2010)
Volume 25 (2009)
Volume 24 (2008)
Volume 23 (2007)
Volume 22 (2006)
Volume 21 (2005)
Volume 20 (2004)
Volume 19 (2003)
Volume 18 (2002)
Volume 17 (2001)
Volume 16 (2000)
Volume 15 (1999)
Volume 14 (1998)
Volume 13 (1997)
Volume 12 (1996)
Volume 11 (1995)
Volume 10 (1994)
Volume 9 (1993)
Volume 8 (1992)
Volume 7 (1991)
Volume 6 (1990)
Volume 5 (1989)
Volume 4 (1988)
Volume 3 (1987)
Related articles

VOLUME 29 , ISSUE 3 (September 2013) > List of articles

Identifying D-positive donors using a second automated testing platform

Mindy Goldman / Ilona Resz / Jacqueline Cote / Gorka Ochoa / Nancy Angus

Keywords : weak D phenotype, RHD alleles  

Citation Information : Immunohematology. Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 97-100, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/immunohematology-2019-130

License : (Transfer of Copyright)

Published Online: 01-December-2019

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Because of the variability of D expression, one method may be inadequate to correctly classify donors with variant RHD alleles. We evaluated the use of a solid-phase automated platform (ImmucorGamma Galileo) to confirm D– test results obtained on first-time donors on the Beckman Coulter PK7300 automated microplate test system. Samples with discordant results were analyzed by serologic tube methods, RHD genotyping using the BLOODchip platform (Progenika), and, if necessary, sequencing. We estimated the number of cases of alloimmunization in women younger than 50 years likely to be prevented by the addition of Galileo testing. From May 2011 to May 2012, 910,220 donor samples were tested; 15,441 were first-time donors with concordant D– results. Five donors tested D– on the PK7300 and weak D+ on the Galileo; one was found to be a false positive on further testing. On manual testing, the other four donors had positive indirect antiglobulin test results with one to three of the antisera used and were C+. On BLOODchip testing, two donors were classified as D+, and two were assigned a “no call.” D variants included weak D type 67, weak D type 9, and two novel variants. Approximately 10 percent of D– units are transfused to women younger than 50 years. Assuming an alloimmunization rate of 30 percent, use of the Galileo would prevent approximately one alloimmunization every 5 to 6 years in this patient group. We conclude that the yield of preventing alloimmunization in this population by adding a second automated serologic testing platform is very low.

You don't have 'Full Text' access of this article.

Purchase Article Subscribe Journal Share