Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. jalomahe

    jalomahe

    Members - Bounced Email


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      136


  2. Dr. Pepper

    Dr. Pepper

    Members


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      824


  3. Bb_in_the_rain

    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      145


  4. radwan1411

    radwan1411

    Members


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      15


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/10/2018 in all areas

  1. Yes correct , 10 sample from each abo and rh, 5 negative ICT and 5 positive , 5 negative DCT and 5 positive , the both methods results must agree
    1 point
  2. Sorry for the delay but I've been retired for 2 years and have not been hitting this site much. We would order the blood on a new accession number that also had a nonreportable test SAMPLE USED to record/trace the original sample.
    1 point
  3. Way back in 2003, the AABB published "Guidelines for Implementing an Electronic Crossmatch". In the section REQUIREMENTS on page 4 "Additional criteria suggested, but not universally accepted, include: ... The antibody screen should include a three- or four-cell sample." No further explanation was given but presumably it was for the reasons stated above that you are likely to have more cells with a homozygous antigen expression in a 3-cell panel than you are in a 2-cell panel. Most manufacturers of 3-cell panels make sure to include cells that are homozygous for Duffy and Kidd to avoid missing those. So long story short....that's why we use a 3-cell panel as part of our due-diligence of providing blood by computer assisted crossmatch.
    1 point
  4. here is a fun case along with a question that I cannot wrap my head around it. Mother: Anti-D and anti-G identified (both strongly reactive by PeG and saline-IAT), Anti-C ruled out by differential adsorption and elution with R2R2 cells and r'r cells. All other common alloantibodies ruled out. She was not previously transfused or pregnant. TITER with R2R2 cells = 1024, titer with r'r cells - 128 (I know this titer is so unhelpful since expression on each of our indicator cells are different) Baby: (here is the fun part.. ready?) - on the birthday D typing negative with MoAb anti-D reagent at room temperature with untreated cells, EGA treated cells, twice EGA treated cells. DAT 4+ with untreated cells, EGA treated cells and twice EGA treated cells. Baby is fine (dont need transfusion, not hemolysing). Plasma and eluate reactive with D+ and C+ cells. insufficient sample to perform adsorption/Elution to differential anti-D from anti-G. eluate- reactive with D+ cells and C+ cells/ we assume it was anti-D and anti-G in there. Genotyping result. RHD*DAU0. Homozygote D deletion detected. So baby is heterogygote DAU-0 without a normal D gene. 1 month later, baby came back hemolysing. DAT 4+ with untreated cells. Anti-D typing 4+ with EGA treated and untreated cells. DAT on EGA treated cells is negative. plasma and eluate reactive with C+ and D+ cells. all other alloabs ruled out. Not enough sample to perform adsorption/Elution My question is.. The baby's red cells were clearly coated with anti-G and/or anti-D why did it not hemolyse at birth but 1 month after. I have heard of blocking mechanism serologically as in this case Does the heavy coating of antibodies makes Fc receptor inaccessible for macrophages for hemolysis? Could it be anti-G alone (not anti-D) coating on the red cells protecting the red cells from hemolysis by anti-D?
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.