Pants

[YorkshireExile]

I have a friend who is helping design the the Blood Bank part of a computer system. She has been told to include the rule that all blood for neonates and children under one year old should be PANTS negative. We both have no idea what PANTS stands for. Can anyone help?

[Malcolm Needs ☆]

I have a friend who is helping design the the Blood Bank part of a computer system. She has been told to include the rule that all blood for neonates and children under one year old should be PANTS negative. We both have no idea what PANTS stands for. Can anyone help?

It stands for Paediatric Antibody Screen!

Basically, this means that the antibody screen performed on a donated unit of blood is undertaken in a less "cavalier" approach than that used for blood destined for adults.

In the UK, for example, and I'm not absolutely sure of my facts here, because I work on the patients' side of things, rather than the donors, the antibody screen involves enzyme-treated red cells (I think) and plasma from the donor that is diluted about 1 in 4.

For PANTS, the red cells are not enzyme-treated (or they use enzyme-treated and untreated red cells - I'm not quite sure) and the plasma is tested undiluted.

I hope that rather garbbled explanation helps. I'm completely sure that another poster could put it in a much better way!

:):)

[LaraT23]

Hmmm, that sounds like the PANTS version is less sensitive than the regular version. Am I understanding that one right? In which case, why even consider that at all? If the regular procedure for antibody screening on donors is better than what you are condering, why dumb it down? I just helped to build, customize, train and install our magic 6.0 CS version for blood bank and I can assure that no PANTS were considered... I mean it doesn't have legs anyway, it is a computer( sorry just couldn't resist!). I do hold with the theory that it does have a mind, and that it really does hate me some days though.

[Malcolm Needs ☆]

Hmmm, that sounds like the PANTS version is less sensitive than the regular version. Am I understanding that one right? In which case, why even consider that at all? If the regular procedure for antibody screening on donors is better than what you are condering, why dumb it down? I just helped to build, customize, train and install our magic 6.0 CS version for blood bank and I can assure that no PANTS were considered... I mean it doesn't have legs anyway, it is a computer( sorry just couldn't resist!). I do hold with the theory that it does have a mind, and that it really does hate me some days though.

In that case Lara, my explanation was even more stupid than I thought!

What I actually meant was that the PANTS is more sensitive than the normal antibody screen.

I knew I should have left it to someone who works on the donor side of things!!!!!!!!!!

[YorkshireExile]

Thanks Malcolm and Lara for the replies.

I now understand what PANTS means, but I`m no clearer on understanding the concept!

Are you saying that blood destined for paediatric patients should have a more sensitive antibody screen done on the donor plasma? That instead of just using cells in LISS for the antibody screen (we use a Diamed 3 cell screen) we should also use a 3 cell enzyme-treated cells screen (In effect a 6 cell screen)? Plus we also have to dilute the donor plasma 1 in 4?

Why? Is this standard practice in the UK or anywhere else in the world? What is the rationale behind this?

[Malcolm Needs ☆]

I just KNEW that I would make a complete hash of explaining this.

No, blood destined for an adult has the "abbreviated antibody screen using only enzyme-treated red cells (so it will detect Rh antibodies easily, but will not detect, say, an anti-Fya) and uses diluted plasma.

Blood destined for babies (and foetuses, come to that) is screened for antibodies on undiluted plasma, using both enzyme-treated (so that Rh antibodies are easily detected) and non-enzyme-treated red cells (so that, again, for example, anti-Fya will be detected).

In other words, there is MORE chance of detecting an antibody in the donor blood that is destined to be given to a baby, than there is in blood destined for an adult.

As far as I am aware, this is how it is tested throughout the UK.

I am sorry for causing such confusion.

:cries::cries: