Comparison of cross-matching method for detection of DEA 7 blood incompatibility

Evaluation of post-transfusion RBC alloimmunization in dogs using a gel-column crossmatch with and without anti-canine globulin enhancement

A blood crossmatch is essential to ensure RBC compatibility for previously transfused dogs. There is no gold standard crossmatch method for dogs, although the standards used most commonly by academic institutions and reference laboratories are the tube and gel-column crossmatches. Addition of anti-canine globulin (ACG) has been suggested to increase detection of RBC incompatibilities. Our objective was to determine if there is a correlation between results of a standard and an ACG-enhanced gel-column crossmatch in detecting post-transfusion RBC alloimmunization. Pre- and post-transfusion serum or plasma samples were obtained from 33 dogs for major crossmatches to 1-6 (median: 3) blood donors. Crossmatches were performed with (n = 202) and without (n = 202) ACG, with results scored by 4 observers, 3 of whom were anonymized. Ten of 33 (30%) dogs had major crossmatch incompatibilities post-transfusion. RBC incompatibilities (2-4+ agglutination) were detected only with ACG in 4 dogs, only without ACG in 3 dogs, and with both methods in 3 dogs. There was fair correlation between crossmatch methods for determination of compatibility (ρ = 0.34; p < 0.001) and incompatibility (ρ = 0.35; p < 0.001) scores. Among 4 observers, there was near-perfect agreement in determining compatibility (κ = 0.97; p < 0.001) and substantial agreement in overall scoring of incompatibility (κ = 0.77; p < 0.001). Our results suggest that detection of RBC incompatibilities in dogs can be maximized by performing a gel-column crossmatch both with and without ACG enhancement.

Effect of donor blood storage on gel column crossmatch in dogs

BACKGROUND

Compared with fresh blood, stored equine donor blood results in spurious tube crossmatch incompatibilities. Interpretation of blood crossmatch results is considered subjective.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine if the duration of canine donor blood storage impacts compatibility testing using a standard gel column crossmatch and evaluate interobserver variation in the interpretation of crossmatch results.

METHODS

Observational study. Whole blood segments were obtained from 23 canine packed red blood cell (RBC) units for use in crossmatches after storage for 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days. Major and minor crossmatches were performed using serum and RBCs, respectively, from two to three healthy "recipient" dogs per unit. All crossmatch results were interpreted by four observers, of whom three were blinded.

RESULTS

All major crossmatches (n = 61) were compatible on day 0 and remained compatible through day 35 of storage. All minor crossmatches (n = 69) were compatible at all time points, except for five donor pairs with 1 to 3+ agglutination. Repeat testing of these five donor pairs confirmed crossmatch incompatibilities on days 0 through 35, with no change in the degree of incompatibility over time. There was substantial agreement among four observers in determining compatibility (κ = 0.94) and scoring incompatibility (κ = 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

The current practice of performing canine crossmatches with whole blood segments stored for up to 35 days is acceptable, with no spurious changes in compatibility expected over time. The substantial interobserver agreement suggests that the gel column is suitable for performing canine crossmatches in a laboratory setting with multiple personnel.

Alloimmunization in dogs after transfusion: A serial cross-match study

BACKGROUND

Cross-matching is performed to determine the serological compatibility of donor and recipient blood. Current guidelines recommend that cross-matching should be performed in dogs when an initial transfusion was performed more than 4 days ago or when the transfusion history is unknown.

HYPOTHESIS

Determination at what time point alloantibodies are detected in dogs after transfusion. The hypothesis was that dogs would form alloantibodies within 4 days after a transfusion.

ANIMALS

Twenty-one anemic dogs were transfused and monitored for at least 4 subsequent days. Exclusion criteria were persistent red blood cell (RBC) agglutination and a previous transfusion.

METHODS

Prospective observational study. Cross-matching was performed before the initial DEA 1-compatible transfusion and on days 1, 2, 3, and 4 and if possible, between day 5 and 28, using the tube method without enhancement (major cross-match, recipient controls); recipients were monitored for transfusion reactions.

RESULTS

In 12/21 dogs a positive cross-match (microscopic degree of agglutination [AD] 1+ to 2+) was observed within 4 days after the transfusion. In a nonlinear regression model, no significant association was detected between type of anemia (P = .41), RBC storage time (P = .44), immunosuppressive treatment (P = .75) nor transfusion volume (P = .70) and the occurrence of positive cross-matches within 4 days after transfusion. Another 4 dogs developed a positive cross-match (microscopic AD 1+ to 2+) after 6 to 13 days.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

Because production of alloantibodies was detected as early as 1 day after transfusion, cross-matching should be performed before every subsequent transfusion.

Comparison of a commercial immunochromatographic strip crossmatch kit and standard laboratory crossmatch methods for blood transfusion compatibility in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate agreement between 2 standard laboratory (SL) methods and an immunochromatographic strip (ICS) method to crossmatch dogs receiving RBC transfusions. A second objective was to evaluate uninterpretable SL crossmatch results as compared to ICS in the presence of autoagglutination.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study (September 2018 to October 2019).

SETTING

University teaching hospital.

ANIMALS

Forty anemic dogs receiving RBC transfusions.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

All dogs received DEA 1-negative packed RBCs. Three crossmatch methods were evaluated against the same unit transfused to each dog: SL method performed at institutional laboratory (SL-I), SL method sent to a commercial laboratory (SL-C), and a commercially available point-of-care ICS method. Major and minor crossmatches were incompatible for 2.5%/7.5% of ICS tests, 82.5%/52.5% of SL-I tests, and 52.5%/27.5% of SL-C tests. Agreement between ICS and SL-C major (κ = 0.05) and minor (κ = 0.02) crossmatches and between ICS and SL-I major (κ = 0.009) and minor (κ = 0.03) crossmatches was slight. Agreement between SL-C and SL-I major (κ = -0.06) and minor (κ = -0.12) crossmatches was poor. Results of major and minor crossmatches were uninterpretable due to autoagglutination in 38%/38% for SL-I and 29%/18% for SL-C crossmatches. ICS method was interpretable for 93% (major) and 98% (minor) crossmatches. After exclusion of uninterpretable SL pairings, agreement still remained poor to slight between all tests. Only 1 of 40 dogs (2.5%; 95% confidence interval: <1.0%-13.2%) had an immediate immunological transfusion reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of agreement between all methodologies was noted. The high level of incompatibility predicted by SL methods despite lack of clinically relevant reactions suggests a high false incompatibility rate as compared to the ICS test. ICS testing was also able to give results more frequently in the face of autoagglutination. Further work is needed to investigate the ICS method's ability to predict clinically significant transfusion reactions.

Association of Veterinary Hematology and Transfusion Medicine (AVHTM) Transfusion Reaction Small Animal Consensus Statement (TRACS). Part 1: Definitions and clinical signs

OBJECTIVE

To use a systematic, evidence-based consensus process to develop definitions for transfusion reactions in dogs and cats.

DESIGN

Evidence evaluation of the literature was carried out for identified transfusion reaction types in dogs and cats. Reaction definitions were generated based on synthesis of human and veterinary literature. Consensus on the definitions was achieved through Delphi-style surveys. Draft recommendations were made available through industry specialty listservs and comments were incorporated.

RESULTS

Definitions with imputability criteria were developed for 14 types of transfusion reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence review and consensus process resulted in definitions that can be used to facilitate future veterinary transfusion reaction research.

Association of Veterinary Hematology and Transfusion Medicine (AVHTM) Transfusion Reaction Small Animal Consensus Statement (TRACS) Part 2: Prevention and monitoring

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review available evidence to develop guidelines for the prevention of transfusion reactions and monitoring of transfusion administration in dogs and cats.

DESIGN

Evidence evaluation of the literature (identified through Medline searches through Pubmed and Google Scholar searches) was carried out for identified transfusion reaction types in dogs and cats. Evidence was evaluated using PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) questions generated for each reaction type. Evidence was categorized by level of evidence (LOE) and quality (Good, Fair, or Poor). Guidelines for prevention and monitoring were generated based on the synthesis of the evidence. Consensus on the final recommendations and a proposed transfusion administration monitoring form was achieved through Delphi-style surveys. Draft recommendations and the monitoring form were made available through veterinary specialty listservs and comments were incorporated.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine guidelines and a transfusion administration monitoring form were formulated from the evidence review with a high degree of consensus CONCLUSIONS: This systematic evidence evaluation process yielded recommended prevention and monitoring guidelines and a proposed transfusion administration form. However, significant knowledge gaps were identified, demonstrating the need for additional research in veterinary transfusion medicine.

Canine Blood Group Prevalence and Geographical Distribution around the World: An Updated Systematic Review

In recent years, blood transfusions have been more commonly given to pets. The importance of determining blood groups in dogs and cats is, therefore, well-known for reducing the risk of adverse reactions in the recipient blood caused by a "non-compatible" donor. This systematic review summarizes data from previously published reports and follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for systematic reviews. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we identified 41 eligible studies using different states and blood-typing methods to determine blood groups in dogs. The dog blood groups that were identified between 1999 and 2020 in 17 different countries were combined to yield the DEA (Dog Erythrocyte Antigen), Kai, and Dal groups. These studies were conducted in Europe, America, Africa, and Asia but not in all the countries of these continents. The methods used to determine blood types have also changed over the years. This systematic review highlights gaps in the literature and should advance future studies synthesizing data with methodological rigor.

Therapeutic Strategies for Treatment of Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia

Immune-mediated hemolytic anemia is a common hematologic disorder in dogs. Disease management involves immunosuppression using glucocorticoids, potentially in combination with other medications such as azathioprine, cyclosporine, or mycophenolate mofetil. Therapeutic drug monitoring may enhance the utility and maximize the safety of cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil. The disease is proinflammatory and prothrombotic. Antithrombotic drug administration is therefore essential, and anticoagulant therapy should be initiated at the time of diagnosis. Additional therapies include red blood cell transfusion to support blood oxygen content. Future therapies may include therapeutic plasma exchange, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and complement inhibitors.