applejw

We do a complete type - both forward and reverse

We are a level 1 Trauma center that routinely gives Emergency Released blood products with approximately 15 MTP activations per month. We have difficulty obtaining MD signature on our Emergency Release forms after the patient moves to OR or if the bleed initiates in the OR. Does anyone utilize an electronic order and use the electronic signature for emergency release/MTP activation? Have you been CAP/AABB/FDA inspected using electronic signatures? If so, were there any problems with the inspection? I am in discussions with Trauma service about obtaining a physical signature and they are begging us to make it "easier" hoping to obtain better compliance with transfusion documentation in Epic. I know that transfusion documentation and physician signature are separate issues but they have presented questions linking the two topics.

We use them with no plans to stop. We also get a second sample for non-Group O patients that are not emergent.

Looked up CAMELLIA and it comes up on the ClinicalTrials.gov website as anti-CD47 and used for AML and MDS. Sponsor is company called Forty Seven Inc. and is currently in Phase 1 trials expecting to end August 2018.

For most species, freezing (even in liquid phase liquid nitrogen (-196C) will not kill the bacteria. There is a lot of literature concerning this subject for cell processing for BMT and I have personal experience with Staph species and Strep species being alive and perfectly happy in a thawed stem cell product. Even after lengthy storage at <-150C.

We are using both Epic and Softbank which, for the purpose of MTP , do not play well together. OR uses the MTP workflow which does allow realtime documentation for units that are selected to the actual patient -where we run into trouble is the units that are emergency released or in the first MTP cooler. These units are pre-selected to a 'dummy' patient and Epic will not allow unit scanning for the particular patient and gives the user a scanning error of something along the lines of "this unit is not intended for the patient" - always great to see on the transfusion end during a high-stress chaotic event where there is massive blood loss. We send paper transfusion records with all MTP units so that they can be scanned into Epic later. The OR flowsheet for MTP is fairly good for units after the first cooler once you have an experienced user doing the transfusion documentation. We have developed a similar flowsheet for emergency released red cells and plasma for use in the ER - could be expanded to other locations but it works differently than BPAM and requires user education.

Assuming that most patient samples are tested against screening cells that do not have a K+k- cell, is the exclusion of anti-K1 using a screening cell with heterozygous expression allowable if the antibody screen result is negative but not allowable if the antibody screen result is positive? If the facility endorses a computer "crossmatch" with a negative antibody screen (using a K+k+ cell) do you require additional testing with a K+k- cell to exclude anti-K1? Ours does not - but we also allow exclusion of anti-K1 with a K+k+ cell for any patient.

I must be misunderstanding - the initial workup showed that there was 2+ reactivity with R1R1 cells and anti-c was identified. I thought R1R1 cells would be c negative and am not understanding the designation "non specific anti-E and anti-c". This isn't a term that I am familiar with.

In my experience, if the platelet product is removed from the original container, the expiration period may be affected by the new storage container's ability to maintain optimal storage conditions. Apheresis platelets are collected in bags that are gas-permeable - if product is transferred to another type of bag (not validated for platelet storage), this should be considered when assigning the expiration date/time even if you volume-depleted using a sterile connecting device. I also consider this when removing the supernatant from CPDA or AS red blood cells (as in intrauterine or exchange transfusions) - you can do everything in a functionally closed system but when you remove the "food", the red cells do not exist in the same environment and cannot be expected to maintain the same functionality. The reason that the Technical Manual is not going to specify is that everything depends on the validation of functional survival of the stored platelet and there isn't data available to make a valid claim.

Homozygous unless demonstrating anti-D (heterozygous C, E). With anti-c or anti-e, uncomfortable with ruling out E, c on heterozygous cells. Would prefer to type the patient (if possible) and give phenotypically similar.

If non-Group O red cells are transfused, verify that there isn't demonstrating anti-A, anti-B or anti-A,B in the baby. Test reverse cells through Coombs phase or crossmatch the red cell unit. To avoid the need to do this testing, transfuse Group O, Rh compatible red cells. In my experience, it's best to limit donor exposure to the infant, if possible, for small volume transfusions. Most facilities I have worked in dedicate a unit to the neonate from the first transfusion request until the unit expires or is used up. CPDA or AS-, AS3 anticoagulant preferred - the fresher the unit when assigning to the baby, the longer it will last. We also only assigned 2 babies per unit and aliquoted the desired volume from the original bag with each transfusion request as close as possible to the time of transfusion. We only irradiated the aliquot ,not the original bag to avoid an increase in extracellular potassium that occurs after irradiation with storage.

LogTag makes several different models - some which can have battery replaced and can be recalibrated so that they can be used for an extended life. They are simple to use and provide excellent temperature tracking records - can be a little tricky to work out how to start the "trip" since the button takes a little practice to get the feel of it.

I thought the purpose of the Check cell was to verify that the AHG reagent was "working" and had not been inactivated at some point during the test, giving a false negative result. If this verification isn't performed, how do you know that it isn't negative because the reagent was inactivated?

The initial A/B/D reverse card result is invalid as the Rh Control was 3+ as were anti-A and anti-B. This is why the testing was repeated using tube reagents. The reaction with anti-D was 1+ with the initial sample (this was repeated multiple times)

Interesting - this antibody behaved as a warm autoantibody with 3+ reactions against all cells tested using MTS-IgG cards. Eluate was 4+ when tested with the same panel of reagent cells. There was no obvious difference in reactivity between D positive and D negative cells. Does anti-LW always demonstrate reactivity that is stronger with D positive when compared with D negative red cells? I try to remember that antibodies don't read books.... and do whatever they like!