Another Case of Haemolytic Transfusion Reaction due
to Incompatibility without Demonstrable Antibodies

Heistø, H; Myhre, Kåre; Börresen, Wilhelm; Vogt, Else; Heier, Anna‐Margrethe

doi:10.1159/000464803

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous findings [19] that in vitro weak antibodies may cause rapid red cell destruction indicates that some of the AA positive and manual negative antibodies may be clinically important. Furthermore, several authors [4,6,8,9,11,27,29,30] have reported hemolytic transfusion reactions or accelerated destruc tion in vivo of 'apparently' compatible cells.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Red Cell Antibody Analysis. A Parallel Study

Perrault¹,

Högman²

1971

Vox Sanguinis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The AutoAnalyzer method of red blood cell antibody detection can be adapted to identify the serological specificity of these same antibodies. In the present study, 1,152 AA-positive sera obtained during AA screening were investigated. In 217 (19%) of these sera blood group antibodies were identified by manual techniques. Since the AA techniques are generally more sensitive than manual methods an attempt was made to identify antibodies by the AA methods in 823 sera which were negative manually. The low-ionic strength-Polybrene (LISP) method was found to be suitable for antibody identification because of its sensitivity in the detection of most red cell antibodies and the small technical deviations of OD from the base-line. The bromeline-methyl cellulose (BMC) technique is less sensitive and often more difficult to interpret in antibody identification. In some cases, however, this method was the only one that gave positive reactions. In 214 instances antibodies were identified by the AA techniques, about half of which were anti-D’s, the others being RBC antibodies of more or less rare varieties. The relative frequency of these rare antibodies was higher in the group of manual-negative sera, 47 versus 21%, normally found. Positive identification but no clear-cut blood type antibody was found in 155 cases (19%). Indications were obtained that some of the reactions were due to HL-A antibodies. Antibodies to HL-A7 and HL-A5 were found to react with red cells. In addition the AA techniques seemed to be more sensitive to detect RBC autoantibodies than standard manual methods. However, the usefulness of the AA techniques for routine antibody identification is diminished by the relative slowness of the machine.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Red Cell Antibody Analysis. A Parallel Study

Perrault¹,

Högman²

1971

Vox Sanguinis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous findings [19] that in vitro weak antibodies may cause rapid red cell destruction indicates that some of the AA positive and manual negative antibodies may be clinically important. Furthermore, several authors [4, 6,8,9,11,27,29,301 have reported hemolytic transfusion reactions or accelerated destruction i n vivo of 'apparently' compatible cells.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Red Cell Antibody Analysis. A Parallel Study

Perrault§¹,

Högman²

1971

Vox Sanguinis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A parallel study of red cell antibodies was undertaken using two wellknown AutoAnalyzer techniques: the bromelin-methylcellulose (BMC) method as described by Marsh, and the low-ionic strength-Polybrene (LISP) technique of Lalezari. In the present study, minor modifications were made to both methods, without changing the basic principle of antibody detection. The results obtained in this parallel study were compared to standard manual techniques. Screening of 13,135 sera gave 8.7% positive reactions. Of these, 22% were identified manually as being caused by red cell antibodies. Further antibodies could be identified by the machine [described elsewhere]. The sensitivity of the automated methods was generally higher than manual techniques, about 12 times for the BMC and 70 times for the LISP method. Anti-s, -Fy^a, -Jk^a, -Jk^h, and -K were less sensitively detected by the BMC than the most appropriate manual method in a test of 14 commercial typing sera. In no case was the LISP less sensitive than manual techniques. However, hemolyzing antibodies can be missed in rare instances. Anti-D was found at a lower sensitivity level of 20-50 ng/ml with the indirect antiglobulin technique, 5-15 ng/ml with the twostage papain technique, 2-4 ng/ml with the BMC method and 0.2-0.4 ng/ml with the LISP method. Some weak anti-D’s (5%) reacted more strongly in the BMC than LISP. When anti-D preparations used for Rh prophylaxis were quantitated with both methods, the results agreed well.

show abstract

Another Case of Haemolytic Transfusion Reaction due to Incompatibility without Demonstrable Antibodies

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

Automated Red Cell Antibody Analysis. A Parallel Study

Automated Red Cell Antibody Analysis. A Parallel Study

Automated Red Cell Antibody Analysis. A Parallel Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About