Category: Patient

Includes compatibility testing (AHG, electronic, immediate-spin), antigen typing, antibody screening and identification, direct antiglobulin testing, elution, transfusion reaction and drug reaction workups, component typing tests upon receipt in hospital blood bank, release and return of components

Processes and Software Building 12: Electronic (Computer) Crossmatch

drzeydLeave a comment

As much as 90% of the RBC component allocation can be performed without an actual crossmatch test—AHG or immediate-spin provided that certain criteria are met.

Enforcing these rules, however, can be cumbersome unless one has blood bank software that verifies that each rule is met.  In the Medinfo patient module, the transfusion history database is checked automatically.  If the rules are met, then Medinfo allows the selection (allocation) of RBC units without performing a crossmatch test.  Otherwise, it will check to see if the AHG crossmatch has been done within the past 3 days.  If not, it will prompt for new crossmatch testing with a new specimen.  If the situation is urgent, one can go to Emergency Mode and release components without the crossmatch.

The following is the latest document I prepared on this process before leaving HMC.  Please note that there was an extensive validation before this was activated for patient use.

INTERIM POLICY:  ELECTRONIC (COMPUTER) CROSSMATCH

Revised Date:  1/2/18

Principle:

In selected patient categories, no classical crossmatch may be required for release of RBC components.  The criteria are specified here as applicable in our Medinfo Hematos IIG computer system HIIG.

Policy:

  1. An electronic crossmatch without antiglobulin or immediate-spin phase testing may be used for the following patient categories:
    1. The current ABO/D type matches the historical ABO/D type.
    2. The ABO/D type (forward and reverse) is clearly defined without any discrepancies.
    3. Two determination of the ABO/D group must be made:
      1. One from a current specimen (within the past 72 hours)
      2. The second by one of the following methods:
        1. Testing a second current specimen
        2. Comparison with previous records of ABO/D typing
        3. Retesting the same specimen
    4. The current antibody screen is negative
    5. There is no history of RBC antibodies or a non-negative antibody screen.
  2. General computer system safeguards:
    1. The system contains the donor unit number, component name, confirmed ABO/D typing, two unique recipient identifiers, recipient ABO/D, antibody screen typing, and interpretation of compatibility
    2. A method exists to verify correct entry of data before release of blood or blood components.
    3. The system contains logic to alert the user to discrepancies between donor ABO/D group on the unit label and those determined by blood confirmatory tests and to ABO incompatibility between the recipient and donor unit.
  3. HIIG will enforce the above rules.

References:

  1. HIIG Workflow 1004, Patient Testing, 2013
  2. Section 5.16, Standards for Blood Banks and Transfusion Services, Current Edition, AABB, Bethesda, MD, USA
  3. FDA Guidance for Industry:  Computer Crossmatch (Computer Analysis of the Compatibility between the Donor’s Cell Type and the Recipient’s Serum or Plasma Type), April, 2011

Urgent Request, Unexpected Antibody, No Previous Workup

drzeydLeave a comment

It is the middle of the night, you only have one blood bank technologist on duty, an urgent request for 6 units of packed PRBCs from a bleeding patient is received. You have units, you have the specimen, but also the unfortunate luck that the antibody screen is positive. There is no previous transfusion history and no previous results. What do you do? They need the blood YESTERDAY!!! The Transfusion Medicine Consultant is called and tells the staff not to release any RBCs until the workup is complete.

The following is taken from my Powerpoint presentation based on this incident. The intended audience is basic-level blood bank technical staff and the clinicians involved in the case:

Processes and Software Building 11: Middleware and Truth Tables

drzeydLeave a comment

I try never to forget that in most cases, the simplest solution is the best.  This applies to software as well.  The ideal situation is to have one interface to the blood bank software.

In many laboratory softwares, there is a middleware to interpret the raw data as it comes out of the equipment which may reformat it and interpret it.  This approach means that you have to have one interface then middleware and then finally the software.

Inevitably, both the middleware and the laboratory software will need updating.  Can you assume that they will still work after either or both are updated?  Will there be regression errors?

A good example of regression errors is the Microsoft Windows Feature Update (sometimes referred to as the Update from Hell!).  Previously working functionality gets broken, data can be lost, etc.

In Medinfo, you store a truth table of possible results and interpretations.  Medinfo will directly read the machine interface data, interpret it according to the rules you make.  The data can be numeric or alphanumeric or both.  Each test, each equipment can have its own unique rules if necessary.

In my opinion, it is best to avoid middleware if your blood bank software can perform this function directly.  When you upgrade it, it is much less likely to show errors—and you only have to deal with one vendor.  Can you be certain that the middleware vendor and the blood bank software vendor will work well together to resolve any issues?

The following are some examples of truth tables, i.e. the rules for interpretation and disposition of interface results actually used at HMC Doha during my tenure there:

Example 1:  Blood Component Production Truth Table

Production can only proceed if the volumes are within the specified ranges.  This is very important if you are going to perform pathogen-inactivation since the ultraviolet illuminator requires a specific range, even more so if you are adding Mirasol (riboflavin) and PAS (platelet additive solution).


Example 2: ABO/D Antigen Typing:

One manufacturer’s requirements:

Example 3:  Complicated D Typing Algorithm:

The acceptable range for automatic interpretation is much more complicated for D typing with the Ortho Vision MAX and uses 3 different monoclonal cocktails:

Example 4:  Direct Antiglobulin Test Algorithm:

Both alphanumeric and numeric results are used.

Example 5:  Four-Cell Antibody Screen:

Truth table for interpretation requires both alphanumeric and numeric results:


Conclusion:

If you are fortunate to have a dedicated blood bank software, you may not need middleware.  Otherwise, you may need to use it for linking to general laboratory systems.  Hopefully, your vendors will cooperate with each other.

To Be Continued:

2/7/20

Processes and Software Building 10: Hospital Blood Bank/Transfusion Services Overview

drzeydLeave a comment

The following post is based on my experience 2011-2020 at HMC through 16/4/20:

I have had many posts about the Blood Donor Center from registration, collection, processing, testing, and dispatch (inter-depot transfer).  The hospital transfusion service or hospital blood bank continues the process on selection of the appropriate blood component for the patient.  Specifically, it:

  1. Verifies the ABO/D type of RBCs and ABO type of plasma components received
  2. Physically examines each unit checking for leaks, labelling errors, etc.
  3. Receives into stock the various components
  4. Performs basic type and screen (group and save) testing of the patient including ABO/D type and antibody screen
  5. Identifies antibodies if the antibody screen is non-negative
  6. Performs direct antiglobulin test and elution if positive
  7. Modifies components (thawing, aliquoting, irradiating, washing, pooling)—although in some sites, these latter functions may be performed in the Blood Donor Center
  8. Performs compatibility testing and selects the appropriate method (electronic, immediate-spin, antiglobulin phase crossmatch)
  9. Releases blood components to outside staff (nurses, doctors, etc. as allowed by the local authority)
  10. Investigates transfusion reactions

When I was at HMC which included many hospital blood banks, we standardizes our methodologies/processes as much as possible, but we still had some differences based on the equipment at each site.  When we built the blood bank computer system, we had to build a specific process for each test, taking into account the methodology and the type of reagents used.  We used the manufacturer’s recommendations when establishing the criteria for each test.

There were manual and multiple automated tests, e.g. for ABO/D typing.  Rules were established when automated release was allowed and when a manual review was necessary.  Complicated cases were referred to the transfusion medicine physician for review and comment.

In our system, all tests could be ordered and performed from all sites.  Transfusion medicine physicians could review all work from all sites.  For technologists, they were restricted to the sites they worked or supervised except to review results.

All patient results across the entire system from the current and previous system were available and could be used to make/enforce rules.

In general, certain categories of results were referred to the transfusion medicine physician for review, but any test could reviewed by him/her, especially if a clinician requested it.  Everything was documented in the software.

Component modification (thawing, aliquoting, irradiating, pooling, washing) processes were the same at all sites AND the blood donor center.  Each modification changed the ISBT designation of the component, a new ISBT label was printed, and the outdate of the components were updated.

Antibody workups were still performed manually, but direct antiglobulin tests could be  manual or automated.  In each case,  review with an interpretative comment was made by the transfusion medicine physicians and might include recommendations for selection and use of components.  Rules enforced by the software could be made to enforce these recommendations.

To Be Continued:

1/7/20

My Opinion: Use of Enzyme Panels

drzeydLeave a comment

Working for many years in the Middle East/Gulf, I have encountered significant antibodies that can only be detected at enzyme phase.  This is especially true of Rh system antibodies, particularly anti-c in an R1R1 patient.  I have attached an example.

The reasons I strongly recommend this practice are:

  1. Weak Rh system antibodies (as above)
  2. Confirmation of enzyme-labile antibodies, especially if there may be both enzyme-labile and enzyme-resistant antibodies

It is also important to consider which enzyme to use:  bromelin, ficin, or papain usually and sometimes trypsin or chymotrypsin.  They do not always attack at the same site.

In addition to most common MNSs and Duffy system antibodies, many Kell antibodies (e.g. K or K1, Kpa) are labile with papain but less so or not at all with ficin.

Using enzymes is a double-edged sword since they may enhance cold antibodies and thus cause nonspecific reactions.  Thus, I know many of you may not routinely include them in your workups.

It is essential to follow the manufacturer’s recommendations for their use.  If you make your own enzyme-treated cells and prolong the incubation, you may get false positivity.  You should also be careful about using potentiators with enzyme-treated cells—normally I run them in saline, not LISS!

Since anti-c may cause severe hemolysis and severe hemolytic disease of the newborn, I am especially vigilant in my R1R1 patients, particularly females of child-bearing age and all chronically transfused patients.  I prophylactically match R1R1 patients with R1R1 RBCs in these categories, regardless if either anti-E or anti-c are expressed.

I would be very interested to know your practices?  When do you use enzymes?

1/7/20

anti-ec-hmc-111225_redacted_page_2-1

Nonspecific Antibodies: My Approach

drzeyd1 Comment

Anyone reviewing antibody panels, especially in the Middle East/Gulf region, encounters many panels for which no antibody specificity is identified.  As a transfusion medicine physician who often got called during the night for release of RBCs for patients with “nonspecific” pattern, this was a big headache.

Is it “nonspecific” because there isn’t a clinically significant antibody OR the technologist did not perform the testing or its interpretation correctly?  Does it need further testing?  Do I release blood components at this time?

I have attached an example of an antibody panel that has a few weak to 1+ reactions using a gamma-whole-molecule IgG AHG reagent.  Notice that they are enzyme-labile.

I have worked in this region both before and after gel/glass bead technology was introduced.  In the good old days, I formerly only used a gamma heavy-chain specific AHG in tubes with LISS.  Nonspecific reactions were few.

When we adopted gel and at some sites glass bead columns, there was only a choice between polyspecific AHG and whole-molecule IgG AHG.  The rate of non-specificity soared from less than 10% to over 30% of panels.  The reactions were reproducible over multiple technologists at multiple sites.

When I repeated the same specimen against a manual tube panel using gamma-heavy-chain specific AHG, the reactions disappeared in the majority of the cases.  Why?

Heavy chain specific reagents do not detect light chains.  Light chains are the same in IgM and IgG antibodies.  Both polyspecific and whole molecule IgG AHG detect light chains.  Thus, high-thermal-amplitude cold antibodies may be detected with the latter but are unlikely to react with heavy chain specific reagents.

When I used manual tube reagents, I would have missed these reactions, but I do not recall this having clinical consequences except in very rare circumstances (refer to my previous post about the anti-Jka only detectable with polyspecific reagents—I have seen 3 in 30 years).

I have asked various gel/glass bead manufacturers to provide me with heavy-chain gamma-specific AHG, but none have agreed.

Normally, for automation, I use IgG-whole molecule AHG.  If the reactions are nonspecific, we repeat the testing manually using the gamma-heavy-chain-specific AHG.  If negative, I ignore the nonspecific reactions and use the same gamma-heavy-chain-specific AHG for full antiglobulin-phase crossmatching.

In general, with nonspecific reactions, I recommend the following:

  1. Always do enzyme panels, sometimes with both papain and ficin reagents:  many Rh antibodies are optimally detected only at enzyme (example:  R1R1 with apparent anti-E at AHG but the anti-c only seen at enzyme)
  2. Perform an extended Rh/Kell/Duffy/Kidd/Kell/MNSs/P1 phenotype and specifically check for those negative typing results AND for dosage (could the antibody only be detected in homozygous cells like many anti-M are?).
  3. Perform classical room temperature, 37C, and finally AHG phase testing.  Routinely I do not do this since antibodies not detected at 37C are unlikely to be clinically significant.  Sometimes, the AHG phase reactivity is a cold antibody of high-thermal amplitude.
  4. If the Jka or Jkb antigen typings are negative, repeat using a polyspecific AHG reagent.
  5. Use additional panels from multiple manufacturers.  Some reagents detect more nonspecific reactions than others.
  6. Try other potentiators than LISS such as PEG.
  7. Check the outdate of the panel and reagents:  if less than 1 week remaining, consider repeating with fresh reagents and getting a new patient sample.

Finally, if you still cannot define the specificity, consider repeating after several days.  Maybe it is a newly emerging or an anamnestic response.

I emphasize as a physician, I do not care to see all possible antibodies present in the specimen but rather only those likely to be clinically significant.

The Devil is in the Details: Three Antibody Panels for Illustration

drzeyd

As a Transfusion Medicine physician, I reviewed all antibody workups.  Here are three different panels, all appearing to be panreactive,  at AHG phase.  Note the differences:

  1. Autocontrol is positive, enzyme is panreactive and enhanced
  2. Autocontrol is negative, enzyme phase shows no reactions
  3. Autocontrol is negative, enzyme phase is panreactive enhanced

In the middle of the night, if I am called to select blood, I always keep these patterns first and foremost in my mind.

Case 1:

If the autocontrol is positive at about the same strength as the panreactivity.  I can state that this is probably a warm autoimmune pattern WAIHA (although I cannot rule out underlying clinically significant alloantibodies obscured by this pattern and need to do autologous auto-absorption ZZAP).  Both warm autoimmune antibodies and certain drug reactions may cause this pattern.  Use least-incompatible crossmatch matching any significant specificities you found by ZZAP and observe the patient closely throughout transfusion.

Case 2:

If the autocontrol is negative and all reactions are enzyme-labile—and if you live in the Middle East/Gulf region, then you have a presumptive anti-Ge2.  You can safely ignore this antibody and release least-incompatible crossmatch RBCs, regardless of the strength of the reactions.

Case 3:

If the autocontrol is negative and the reactions are unchanged or enhanced by enzyme, BE AFRAID, VERY AFRAID!!  This is an antibody to a high-incidence antigen.  These can be very dangerous.  In the Middle East/Gulf region, consider anti-H, anti-k (cellano), anti-Kpb, anti-PP1Pk, and rare antibodies to the MNSs such as anti-U or other MN system deletions.  There are many other possibilities, e.g. anti-Fy3.

You need to perform extended antigen typing across the major Rh antigen, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, MNSs, P systems (at least P1):

  1. Run H lectin to rule out Bombay Oh or Parabombay.
  2. Some Rh system deletions and Rh null show pan-Rh reactivity—check D, C, c, E, e typings.
  3. Anti-k (cellano) will be suggested by k-negative phenotype.
  4. Unusual, weak or absent reactions with M and N reagents suggest something like En(a)-negative or similar.
  5. Absent P1 with no other findings, you must rule out anti-Tja (anti-PP1Pk).

I have seen all of these specificities during my time in the Middle East.  All of these antibodies can be clinically significant and often life-threatening.

Conclusion:  NEVER NEGLECT TO REVIEW THE AUTOCONTROL!!!

Nonspecific Reactions, Reagents Near Expiration

drzeyd

Whenever I had a “nonspecific” antibody, I had to first rule out issues with the reagents themselves. The following example shows weak to 2+ reactions in the panel cells and autocontrol.

The variability in the reactions made me initially uncomfortable about called this WAIHA. I then checked the panel details: the testing was done only six days before the panel outdate.

I told my staff to repeat the workup with the new panel expiring five weeks later. The difference is astounding!!

Remember: if you work in the Middle East, the environmental conditions can be extreme in summer (>50C). Do you know how your reagents were handling during transport?

My advice: if you are concerned there is a clinically significant antibody but cannot discern it, consider repeating the workup using fresh reagents.

Processes and Software Building 7: Interfaces 2

drzeyd

Blood Bank instruments may perform tests and release test results in a numerical or alphanumeric format or both.  For example, nucleic acid and enzyme immunoassay may release a qualitative result (e.g. positive, reactive, borderline/grayzone, negative, nonreactive).  Alternatively, the machine may release the signal to cutoff ratio (S/CO) as a numeric result.

Blood bank software may use either kind of result on which to base interpretative rules for acceptability of the donor.  The qualitative result criteria are based on the quantitative SC/O but the equipment automatically interprets this.  The S/CO ratio of 1 is the cut-off point.  Thus a value of 0.99 is negative and the value 1.01 is positive.  But is it really so clear-cut since the difference between the two is so small?  Thus, some people have added the term grayzone for values close to but below the cutoff.  Could a value of 0.95 be an early infection?

I personally prefer to see the actual cutoff but use the manufacturer’s criteria for interpretation.  As a physician, it is good to review the S/CO on serial exams.  If a borderline or grayzone result becomes positive, then perhaps the original result indicated early infection.  The question still remains, what is the grayzone?  0.95 to 0.99, 0.90 to 0.99, etc.  Some accrediting schema have not used grayzone for interpretation.

With Medinfo’s blood bank software, I could chose either option or both—or at least store the S/CO as a nonreported result for subsequent review.  I could even chose, test by test, in a series between reporting either S/CO or the qualitative result.

Semiquantitative results, e.g. in {0, 1+, 2+, 3+, 4+} are qualitative and could also include mixed field (mf) and hemolyzed (h).  I showed examples of this with ABO/D antigen typing in a previous post—see attachment.

On the contrary, the results from blood production equipment may include parameters such as time of preparation, original volume, final volumes for each component, platelet yield index as an indirect measure of platelet count.  When there is pooling, the final total volume is critical to determine if pathogen-inactivation procedures and platelet additive solution can be used.  This is a much more complicated interface.

The blood production equipment interface issues will be considered in a future post.

Attachment:

ABO/D sample typing process in Medinfo

To Be Continued:

24/6/20

Case Report: Unusual Antibody Anti-Jka

drzeyd

This is a rare anti-Jka that only reacts with polyspecific AHG and only in Jka+ homozygous reagent cells. In the past three decades in the Middle East, I have only seen three of these.

Almost all anti-Jka and anti-Jkb antibodies in my experience can be detected using monospecific, gamma-heavy-chain AHG reagents (I personally prefer this latter reagent to avoid cold antibody interference.)

If you have a nonspecific antibody, never discount this possibility and then run polyspecific reagents and check for dosage. I also recommend extended antigen typing (e.g. Diamed/Biorad Profile Cards 1-2-3).