Does anyone have any experience with this company's gel product line and/or the Erytra?

 

Very curious.

I'd like to know this too. I was visited by a Grifols rep this week. He told me that they manufacture the Ortho Provue and that now, they are going to market it themselves under the name Wadiana.

Wondering how Grifols products and customer service stack up against Ortho.

I am having a Grifols presentation here in 2 weeks.  They did make the Provue.

I used the Grifols Wadiana AKA Provue when I worked in Saudi Arabia for a few years. Wadiana & Provue are same instrument.  In SA our reagents came through Diamed, so don't have any direct experience with Grifols or Erytra customer service or products.

Does Grifols have IS crossmatch available on Erytra or Wadianna

I'm pretty sure both the Erytra and the Wadiana would do an IS XM. But it would probably be faster to do it in tube.

David, how did your Grifols presentation go last year? My sales rep came to see me yesterday and wants me to go to Virginia to see the Erytra in action in March.

 

@JustaKIDD

They do have an IS-equivalent via neutral cards. It would probably only make sense to run IS XMs on the Erytra if you were going to wrap it into a profile test with the IAT-XM.

Edited January 15, 20169 yr by goodchild

Grifols says that their IgG gel cards do not require IS crossmatches to be run separately in addition to detect ABO incompatibility like Ortho requires when you run an IgG xm.  We got to trial Grifols' manual workstation for a week or two so we ran some ABO incompatible units (A units for B patients with weaker reverse types).  The results were comparable between MTS IgG gel, Grifols IgG gel and tube--all 3 methods found one of 3 units to be compatible.  The unit turned out to be a subgroup of A.  This is why I think the computer algorithm is a better way to detect ABO incompatibility than any serological test, but it did show that Grifols IgG gel did a comparable job of detecting ABO incompatibility.  I think the main difference in this regard is how the two companies are willing to deal with the fact that their method may sometimes miss ABO incompatibilities (just like tube testing can).

Mabel, so what's your assessment of the Grifol's manual gel workstation? Do you like it better than the MTS gel workstation? I am sore at Ortho for not including tube incubation wells in the new manual gel workstation.

I am interested in your opinion of the Manual Gel as well.  I am holding off on order new Ortho Worstations for Gel.  I have not heard great things about the new design and I am looking at other options.

Our company is just starting to bring up the Grifols instruments, Erytra, Wadiana, and DG reader. 12 sites ranging in size from small rural hospitals to a Level I trauma center. The 2 largest will have all 3 instruments. All will be interfaced to the LIS. I will keep you posted. Currently they are using ECHOs and Provues.

We're going to trial some of their reagents, a manual workstation, and a card reader in the near-ish future.

I saw a demo of the Erytra and was very impressed, until I looked at some of the images the Erytra took of the gel card reactions and interpreted as negative - a few of them looked like what the ProVue would call ? or 1+ but were still being interpreted as negative. When I asked the technologist, I didn't get a very satisfying response. Has anyone else had a chance to see an Erytra in action yet and seen this?

3 hours ago, goodchild said:

We're going to trial some of their reagents, a manual workstation, and a card reader in the near-ish future.

I saw a demo of the Erytra and was very impressed, until I looked at some of the images the Erytra took of the gel card reactions and interpreted as negative - a few of them looked like what the ProVue would call ? or 1+ but were still being interpreted as negative. When I asked the technologist, I didn't get a very satisfying response. Has anyone else had a chance to see an Erytra in action yet and seen this?

I queried the tech who perfroming the validations for the Grifols instruments and she said said she has not seen any problems as described above.

Interesting, thank you for sharing.

That is interesting about Grifols stating they do not require an IS xm-it is my understanding that it is a regulatory requirement to detect ABO isogglutin compatability, which does not come through at IgG phase. With that said, AABB has recently blessed the EC to fulfill this need (anyone else confirmed this)? But to say it is not necessary I believe is misleading, unless it was expounded on to address how to satisfy the regulations.

Following this thread.  Is anyone using the DG Manual Gel system by Grifols?  I had the presentation, it looks like a good product, I like the idea of a combination tube spinner/gel card spinner.

On 2/14/2018 at 8:59 AM, bldbnkr said:

Following this thread.  Is anyone using the DG Manual Gel system by Grifols?  I had the presentation, it looks like a good product, I like the idea of a combination tube spinner/gel card spinner.

We have an Erytra and one manual station for back-up.  It’s rarely used since our analyzer is so reliable, but when we use it it works great.  The gel is clearer and easier to read than our previous MTS cards.  Not sure what you mean about the “spinner”...our centrifuge just holds gel cards.  The incubator, however, holds tubes and gel cards.  Perhaps there has been a change since we went live last February?

6 hours ago, Carrie Easley said:

We have an Erytra and one manual station for back-up.  It’s rarely used since our analyzer is so reliable, but when we use it it works great.  The gel is clearer and easier to read than our previous MTS cards.  Not sure what you mean about the “spinner”...our centrifuge just holds gel cards.  The incubator, however, holds tubes and gel cards.  Perhaps there has been a change since we went live last February?

Hello again,

That was my mistake in reading the literature...I was reading the specs for the DG Therm (incubator) and not the DG Spin centrifuge.  Darn!  It would have been nice.

We have been using the Erytra for 1 1/2 years now.  There were some kinks that had to be worked out (as with any new instrument) and they quickly implemented changes with version upgrades.  As far as seeing what appears to be agglutination on the Erytra, but which it is calling Negative.....if you click on the gel card and enlarge the picture, you  might think they are ALL positive!    They seem to show every little cell.....so I recommend you do not enlarge it to that extent.  They also have some reactions which they refer to as hazy but which one might think were positive.  It is in that sense....a little different from Ortho and ProVue and takes some getting used to.  But there are so many advantages and attributes to this automation.  Yes, they made the ProVue.....but this is very different (I do not have experience using the Ortho Vision....just saw it in a Demo and have heard that it too has had some kinks to be worked out).  What I like about the Grifols Erytra is that they are very quick to respond to client ideas/ suggestions/ issues and make changes.

Brenda Hutson, MT(ASCP)SBB