Hi all,

Looking into semi-automated blood bank testing. What are your thoughts and experiences with Gel vs Capture technology?

  Depends on how automated.  The automated systems are pretty much users choice . . . they both work.  If you are going to be manual - I like gel.  I think it offers more for the generalist.  I think the capture technology is better - no noticeable effects from routeaux, cold abs, hemolysis but manual capture is more demanding on the tech - washing phase in particular.  With manual gel I can do DATs, ag screening, ahgxms without having to worry about binding/bonding cells to a capture plate.  I don't want my generalists to have to do this - I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO DO THIS!.

 

Anyway - that's my $0.02.

If you implement semi-automated blood bank testing, you must also consider 'backup' when your semi-automated instrument is out of service..  I prefer gel because both manual and automated methods use the same reagents.  If you use manual tube Plus a semi-automated instrument, you have to maintain two reagent inventories, and maintain staff competency with two methods.  In a small facility, I prefer to minimize the 'overhead' associated with multiple testing methods..  Use manual gel to backup instrumented gel or better yet, have two automated instruments to backup each other!

We use Provue on first and second shift. The night shift likes and uses manual Gel (one less instrument beeping at them, I guess). Also, manual Gel is a bit faster than the Provue. The capture does have that washing step. And, I think, Gel is more stable if anyone wants to leave something for me to review.

We also use tube methods (LISS, PEG) for antibody work ups as needed, super stats (PEG) and working around warm/cold autos. And, yes, we QC all that!

We use the ECHO with Gel/tube as a backup.  The ECHO (Capture SPRCA) tends to give more "warm auto"/non-specific reactions that are completely negative in gel/tube.  We don't use the manual capture station. 

Having used both, I am definitely pro-GEL!  Reasons:

 

1.  In my experience, more downtime on solid phase instruments

2.  GEL very user-friendly for the Generalist

3.  You don't have to use manual tube if you are using Solid Phase Automation and it is down....you can do manual Solid Phase.  But that can be rather tricky to interpret unless you are really experienced in it.

 

Brenda Hutson

Having used both, I am definitely pro-GEL!  Reasons:

 

1.  In my experience, more downtime on solid phase instruments

2.  GEL very user-friendly for the Generalist

3.  You don't have to use manual tube if you are using Solid Phase Automation and it is down....you can do manual Solid Phase.  But that can be rather tricky to interpret unless you are really experienced in it.

 

Brenda Hutson

Since we are a small hospital lab (25 bed critical access), I as well am leaning towards manual gel with tube as our back-up, so what to you has been tricky to interpret?

_{We have an ECHO and we use PEG as our backup.  It works great because I have two different methodologies to work with and it saved me lots of money on reagents by using the same manufacturer.  Gel gave us way too many nonspecific reactions and it was just too expensive to keep two lines of reagents.}

We have been using the Echo for 4 years with Peg as our backup as well. The techs have no complaints. New employees we have hired who used the Gel/Provue tell me that they would rather use the Echo then the provue since it is faster and is can be used for stats. I have also seen that Johnson & Johnson is considering selling or spinning off ortho diagnostics, if that makes any difference to you.

Good luck I'm sure that which ever way you decide to go you will be happy with your choice.

Later

For a 25 bed critical access hospital the gel with tube backup works very well.  If you are looking at automation to save tech time the Provue works fine but it does use more reagent for priming.

 

I work for an organization that has several small hospitals in 4 states in the Midwest and they all use manual gel due to the fact that they are all generalists.