Jump to content

Recommended Posts

At the hospital I work, homozygous cells are preferred for rule outs but if we can't find a homozygous cell, we generally use three for all heterozygous cells or so I thought.  Yesterday, a co-worker tells me that we don't use 3 heterozygous cells because Kell doesn't show dosage.  I am concerned because I looked it up in a textbook and Kell occasionally shows dosage.  My question is not a who is right, who is wrong situation, but what I would like to know what is your procedure at your hospital?  I also want to be certain because I want to be safe.  Yes, I am fairly new to the field - 6 months experience.  Thanks! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to be REALLY unpopular here, but I'm going to say it anyway (because I am a pedant)!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Antigens CANNOT be either heterozygous or homozygous; only genes can be heterozygous or homozygous.

 

An antigen can be described as either showing homozygous expression, or heterozygous expression.

 

That having been said, is a red cell sample that types as K+k- phenotypically, genotypically K/K or K/Ko, or even K/k, with a mutation within the Kell gene that prevents the k antigen being expressed and detected with all anti-k grouping reagents (just in case anyone doesn't believe me - we had one!).

 

That's got that off my chest.

 

Now then, there is NO doubt that there are some anti-K's around that only react with K+k- red cells (dosage), but they are fairly rare, however, how many people use antibody screening red cells that are K+k-?  I doubt if there are any.  Therefore, we are all ruling out anti-K using red cells with apparent K antigen heterozygous expression on every single sample that (apparently) has no atypical alloantibodies present.  Am I wrong about this?

 

It follows, therefore, that, over the years, there MUST have been occasions when a patient with a very weak anti-K (one that is only detected using red cells that are apparently showing homozygous expression) and who has been transfused with K+ blood (do the maths).  As far as I know, there are no papers within the literature that report a case of either a delayed or an acute transfusion reaction as a result of this.  Yes, this may cause the anti-K to become stronger (and, hence, be detectable using an apparent heterozygous red cell sample showing K+k+ expression), but then, if this happens, you give K- blood.

 

So, my considered answer is that you can exclude using K+k+ red cells.

 

I shall now go and lie down!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, there are no papers within the literature that report a case of either a delayed or an acute transfusion reaction as a result of this.

 

I often wonder about the prevalence of transfusion reactions that occur but are never investigated/identified serologically due to circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have the same protocol:  Preferably rule out with homozygous cells, if those cells are not available with our current lot/s, three heterozygous cells are acceptable. We normally have 3 lots of indated panel cells to use. We may use outdated panel cells as part of a panel of "select" cells if indated cells of the desired phenotype are not available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, my considered answer is that you can exclude using K+k+ red cells.

 

I shall now go and lie down!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Malcolm - I am glad you got that diatribe off your chest.  However, I am probably always going to refer to the expression of ags on red cells as either hetero- or homozygous, for 2 reasons (both of which are really invalid):  1: that is the way I learned them and 2: it is easier than adding"expression" each and every time I use the hetero/homo words. 

 

I do understand and appreciate your drive to provide us "iggerant" ones with the proper terminologies, usages, and whatever else your vast knowledge of the field deems prudent to divulge.  PLEASE DON'T EVER STOP!

 

ds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

godchild, as long as the patient doesn't feel ill, it is not a delayed haemolytic transfusion reaction (whether we investigate it or not).  It is, at worst, a delayed serological transfusion reaction.

 

I didn't intend to come off as questioning your post. That topic is just something that I have often wondered about after my experience in a hospital transfusion setting, where it seems like some possible reactions are definitely under-reported while at the same time we get workups on patients that weren't warranted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We recently had a patient who was in the process of making an anti Kell (at least that is what it appeared to be). We happened to have a KK cell on the panel when we first tested the patient, and the reaction was 3+ with that cell, and + with all the other K positive cells (hetero of course). Several weeks later, the patient returned and now all reactions were the same strength. This is the only time we have ever seen this here. Stuff happens!

 

As a previous BB director here used to say, "There are no guarentees in Blood Banking"

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to continue to be pedantic, even if it means I am banned from this site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
By producing an anti-Kell, Elizabeth, do you mean that the patient was producing an anti-K, or do you mean that the patient was a Ko, and was beginning to produce an anti-Ku???????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why does ruling out with 3 single-dose cells improve your odds over using 2 or even 1?  It doesn't make the antigen on one cell stronger because you ran two others. I know there is a chance that 1 cell has a weaker antigen so running 2 means that you have a better chance that at least one cell will pick it up.  I still think the places that require 3 rule out cells have the rule of 3 for identifying an antibody mixed up with what it takes to rule out.  Have I ranted on this before maybe?  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

To take this one step further, with regards to Mabel's post, I am curious if the folks that allow 3 cells with heterozygous expression ;) to rule out, do you use this logic for all antibodies or just to rule out anti-K. I was never taught that it was OK to rule out using cells with heterozygous expression if you could find a cell of homozygous expression. Anti-K is frequently an example of this as is anti-E in the presence of anti-D and anti-C. The previous blood bank supervisor in our blood bank allowed rule outs using 3 cells of heterozygous expression but I prefer not to, except in the aforementioned cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mabel, I agree completely. I've always been curious as to the logic of using 3 cells of heterozygous expression for exactly the reasons you mention.

We also happily use just one K+k+ cell on our antibody screens, as well as often S+ and other antigens of heterozygous expression.

I think the "There is no such thing as anti-Kell" was in earlier editions as well. I was wondering how long the thread would go on before that raised Malcolm's dander, too. Please keep it up Malcolm. I now always say anti-K, but I don't think anyone else in the lab does! At least they know what I'm talking about. I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try using anti-K1 and anti-K2!  I always tell the students that is what they should be called - but don't expect me to be able to remember it.  Anti-Big K and anti-little k frequently make more sense to students because of the similarity to the Rh antigens terminology.

Not to nit pick but the ISBT terminology is KEL1 and KEL2 - I still like your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mabel got me thinking (always a dangerous exercise), is there a K1, K3 etc mountain? And who was the mysterious "K" they're named after? Other inquiring minds may paste this into their browser and find out:

http://www.gearthhacks.com/dlfile29751/K1,-K2,-K3,-K4,-K5-mountains.htm

Of interest is that most sources credit the name of the system (blood group that is) to a Mrs. Kellacher, who had a baby with HDN, but several others spell her name as "Kelleher".

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other things are that "Cellano" was actually "Nocella", "Lutheran" was actually "Lutteran", the first antibody/antigen discovered in the Kell Blood Group System was anti-Kpc/Kp©, so the system should be called Levay, and the first antibody/antigen discovered in the Diego Blood Group System was anti-Wra/Wr(a), so that system should be called Wright!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are going to HATE me David, but those are the genes - and should be in italics!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sure they are the genes but in the USA they are also the ISBT terminology for the antigenic expressions.  I try to use them when I report out abs to other institutions.  Even the AABB Technical Manual describes these ags as K (KEL1) and k (KEL2).  Could be we are not as astute on this side of the pond.

 

I don't HATE anyone - it is not worth my energy to do so.

 

You are a GREAT RESOURCE so never hesitate to correct me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Advertisement

×
×
  • 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.