Comparison of cross-matching method for detection of DEA 7 blood incompatibility

Abstract

We compared 3 major cross-match (XM) tests to identify dog erythrocyte antigen (DEA) 7 blood incompatibilities in dogs as a result of anti-DEA 7 antibodies: gel (GEL), standard tube (TUBE) agglutination, and immunochromatography strips (STRIP). Blood samples from 42 dogs were typed for DEA 7; 2 tested DEA 7-positive (DEA 7+). The 40 DEA 7-negative (DEA 7-) plasma samples were cross-matched against the 2 DEA 7+ and 3 DEA 7-red blood cell (RBC) samples by GEL to identify samples with anti-DEA 7 antibodies. Twenty DEA 7-plasma samples without and with anti-DEA 7 antibodies were cross-matched with samples of the 2 DEA 7+ RBCs in a double-blind fashion using the TUBE and STRIP XM methods. GEL results were used as the reference method for comparison. To determine relationships between results, 2 × 2 tables were used. Cohen kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated between results of GEL and the other 2 methods. With GEL, 21 of 40 XM tests were positive and 19 of 40 negative for anti-DEA 7 antibodies. The same results were obtained by TUBE, whereas only 1 of 40 XM tests was positive by STRIP. There was a statistically significant relationship between results of GEL and TUBE (p < 0.000) with perfect agreement (κ = 1.000), but not between GEL and STRIP results (p = 1.000) in which agreement was equivalent to chance (κ = 0.0453). The GEL and TUBE XM tests, but not STRIP, are useful methods for identification of DEA 7 incompatibilities caused by anti-DEA 7 antibodies.

Canine Blood Group Prevalence and Geographical Distribution around the World: An Updated Systematic Review

“…The gel column method was used in 15 studies carried out in the USA, Germany, Turkey, Portugal, North America, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland between 2005 and 2020 [ 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 20 , 27 , 28 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. The tube agglutination test was reported between 2006 and 2020 in nine studies in Turkey, the USA, Nigeria, Romania, Spain, Canada, and Brazil [ 10 , 23 , 24 , 36 , 38 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ]. Flow cytometry was used in five studies performed in the USA and Brazil between 2014 and 2020 [ 12 , 19 , 23 , 25 , 26 ].…”

“…The automated canine cartridge dog erythrocyte antigen (DEA) 1.1 test (QuickVet/RapidVet) was reported in only one study in Germany in 2012 [ 27 ]. The immune-chromatographic test was used between 2013 and 2020 in 15 studies carried out in Italy, India, the USA, Zimbabwe, Germany, North America, Spain, Lithuania, and Brazil [ 12 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 26 , 28 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ]. Finally, new card agglutination tests for DEA 4 and DEA 5 were reported in only one study in 2020 in Germany [ 16 ].…”

“…The first method described in the selected articles was the immuno-hematology method at the Serology Laboratory of Michigan State University (MSU) in 1999 [ 21 ]. The most recent studies from 2011 and 2020 instead used flow cytometry and immunochromatographic tests [ 12 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 35 , 39 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ]. However, in some articles, the typing methods used were described differently, even those based on the same method.…”

Comparison of a commercial immunochromatographic strip crossmatch kit and standard laboratory crossmatch methods for blood transfusion compatibility in dogs

“…All methods of crossmatch testing involve the mixing of either donor RBCs and recipient serum (major crossmatch) or donor plasma and recipient RBCs (minor crossmatch) and screening for evidence of antibodies binding to red cell surface antigens. While human medicine and recent veterinary literature are moving toward recommendation of gel column or antibody‐enhanced crossmatch methods, the standard laboratory (SL) crossmatch tube agglutination method is still widely used in commercial laboratories and referral institutions 5,12–15 . The SL method uses agglutination or hemolysis as the “positive” (incompatible) test indicator.…”

“…However, ongoing discoveries of new canine RBC antigens have led some to recommend crossmatching prior to all transfusions 4,9,19–20 . While many studies explore the compatibility results of various crossmatch tests in vitro, to the authors’ knowledge the sensitivity/specificity of these tests to predict clinically relevant transfusion reactions is unknown 6,9,15 …”