TMGal 4 Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 We are looking to purchase testing equipment for our blood banks and will need a mix of fully and semi-automated based on site volume. Looking for feedback from folks on BioRad (IH500 and Saxo Reader), Grifols (Erytra) , Ortho (Vision and workstation) and Immucor (Echo Lumina). We also want middleware for both fully and semi-automated systems. Why did you choose the platform you did? Any regrets? Any happy surprises? Link to post Share on other sites
AMcCord 1,301 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 We've been happily using an Echo for about 9 years. The instrument has been very dependable and is a workhorse. The turn around time for antibody screens is quick. Its footprint is not that large and it fits under our overhead cabinets easily. The test strips store at room temp, so that is an advantage for us. The mechanical part of the instrument is pretty basic with quite a few user replaceable parts. We've had good luck problem solving with a call to support and those times we actually need service, we haven't had to wait long to get an engineer on site even though we are in a rural area a long way from a larger airport. It's a quick train for new users with some nice features to prevent the kind of dumb mistakes that we humans can make. The method is sensitive - you will see more warm autos and anti-D from RhIG, but it is also going to do a great job picking up Jk and Fy antibodies. The cells on the ID panels (3 of them) are well selected. Immucor has tweaked the methodology over the years so that you aren't going to see many non-specific reactions. When we first started using the Echo nine years ago there were more of those types of reactions. When we automated I chose to switch to the Echo from manual gel. During validation I was pleased with the sensitivity compared to gel. We use DI for our middleware. John C. Staley 1 Link to post Share on other sites
TMGal 4 Posted March 30 Author Share Posted March 30 Great feedback. Thank you. jalomahe and AMcCord 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Cliff 453 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 We have two IH 1000. BioRad has been great to work with. They are workhorses. They are complicated and tend to have a fair amount of downtime. Many years ago when we first introduced automation it was solid phase. A lot of our patients were then coming up D positive (D neg history) as the methodology was a lot more sensitive than tube. The same thing happened a few years ago when we switched to gel. You'll also pick up more colds and junk with gel. Overall we're happy. We might consider an IH 500 someday for the titers. TMGal 1 Link to post Share on other sites
David Saikin 1,452 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 I am getting ready to install an ECHO Lumina. Just had our initial set up meeting yesterday. Switching from gel to solid phase. Looking forward to a bit more standardization in this department. We use DI but the ECHO also comes with its own middleware (or so I believe). TMGal, AuntiS and John C. Staley 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites
AuntiS 85 Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 We have been using a Bio-Rad IH-500 (and a SAXO as backup) for about a year now. Very happy with them. They work with the IH-Com that serves as a command centre for both and as middleware. We also use the antibody software and upload our QC to Unity. (We were manual gel/tube prior). sandra TMGal 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Joanne P. Scannell 233 Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 We have been using an Erytra Eflexis (Grifols) for almost 2 years now and we are very happy with it and the service team. It is interfaced to Sunquest. TMGal 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now