Jump to content

Eluate testing? Screens first or straight to a panel?


IRLtech

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I love this forum and have been "lurking" for quite some time!  I have a question for those who perform elutions.

Do you test the eluate with a set of screening cells first or do you go directly to testing against a panel?  Does it depend on how much eluate you have?

I have worked at a few different places and have seen it done both ways so I'm just curious if there is a significant bias one way or the other.

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, jmm8427 said:

One could argue that by doing the panel first you are being efficient and potentially saving time with antibody identification if something is detected.  But by doing the screen you are saving reagent/cost.  I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer to this question?

Rhetorical question: Is it a typical request for a "Type & Panel" ?

If you are almost certain that the eluate will be reactive, I agree that the screen may be redundant. However, it is still a test against phenoptyped cells and the information is still valuable even if you end up testing a panel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally, we do the screen first.  They are often negative, then as far as possibly wasting reagents (and more importantly in an acute care setting--time), you are NOT running a full panel that would have been negative.

And like a returning patient with a known positive atypical antibody history, if the screen is positive, you can use the screen cell results for rule outs/rule ins.

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, SMILLER said:

Generally, we do the screen first.  They are often negative, then as far as possibly wasting reagents (and more importantly in an acute care setting--time), you are NOT running a full panel that would have been negative.

On the other hand, in an acute situation, if the screen is positive, you are wasting time doing the screen, because you will then have to go on and do the panel while the patient is still bleeding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Malcolm Needs said:

On the other hand, in an acute situation, if the screen is positive, you are wasting time doing the screen, because you will then have to go on and do the panel while the patient is still bleeding.

A fair point, Malcolm.

So, I once again pose the rhetorical question: In an acute situation, do you do a "Type & Screen" or a "Type & Panel" ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equally good point.  A type and screen, but this is on the grounds that, in all but the most acute of acute haemolytic transfusion reactions, the reaction can be treated, whereas a patient who has bled to death cannot be resurrected!

Edited by Malcolm Needs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do the screen and the panel right away if there is enough eluate to go around, however our policy also states that if the DAT results have not changed from previous time and no new antibodies have formed, an eluate does not need to be performed. We have a lot of cancer patients on weird meds that mess with the DAT so it would be a supreme waste of reagent to do it over and over to achieve the same "All cells reacting, no specificity" results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another question on eluates - we often get apparent "panagglutinins" when testing eluates.  Our policy has been to send these samples to our Reference Lab because we cannot perform rule outs.  Is this appropriate or over the top?  I kind of like the terminology "newbie" used "All cells reacting, no specificity". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one has to be very careful when answering your question Byfaith.

If you know ABSOLUTELY that it is an auto-antibody, such as an auto-anti-HrB, or something like that, then, unless you have a selection of reagent red cells that are HrB- ot Rhnull, it is a waste of time sending them to most Reference Laboratories, because it is unlikely that they will have access to these rare cells either.

On the other hand, if you have not got that certainty, and the auto is either negative, or the patient has been recently transfused and the DAT is negative, then it maybe far from a waste of time sending the sample to a Reference Laboratory.  Under such circumstances, the antibody could be directed against a high prevalence antigen, either a very clinically significant one, such as Vel, or one of somewhat less clinically insignificance, such as anti-hrB, which may cause a delayed haemolytic transfusion reaction, but is so "low key" as to mimic a serological transfusion reaction, but which could, nevertheless, be avoided given correct identification of both the antibody specificity and suitable donors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Malcolm Needs said:

I think one has to be very careful when answering your question Byfaith.

If you know ABSOLUTELY that it is an auto-antibody, such as an auto-anti-HrB, or something like that, then, unless you have a selection of reagent red cells that are HrB- ot Rhnull, it is a waste of time sending them to most Reference Laboratories, because it is unlikely that they will have access to these rare cells either.

On the other hand, if you have not got that certainty, and the auto is either negative, or the patient has been recently transfused and the DAT is negative, then it maybe far from a waste of time sending the sample to a Reference Laboratory.  Under such circumstances, the antibody could be directed against a high prevalence antigen, either a very clinically significant one, such as Vel, or one of somewhat less clinically insignificance, such as anti-hrB, which may cause a delayed haemolytic transfusion reaction, but is so "low key" as to mimic a serological transfusion reaction, but which could, nevertheless, be avoided given correct identification of both the antibody specificity and suitable donors.

Thanks for your response!  So another somewhat gray area - sounds like we will continue our practice of having our IRL work them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎09‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:41 AM, Malcolm Needs said:

On the other hand, in an acute situation, if the screen is positive, you are wasting time doing the screen, because you will then have to go on and do the panel while the patient is still bleeding.

When I used the term "acute-care setting" I was referring to the facility, as in a hospital (versus a reference lab).  Where the extra time it takes to do a panel (if it may not be needed in non-critical cases) might be a consideration.  We would indeed probably just do a panel to save time if someone was bleeding to death, or at least do both at the same time.  (Generally, I would think that most reference labs do not have patients in "acute situations" lying about!)

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • 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.