I M M U N O H E M AT O L O G Y Polyethylene glycol antiglobulin tube versus gel microcolumn: influence on the incidence of delayed hemolytic transfusion reactions and delayed serologic transfusion reactions _2609 1444..1452 Jeffrey L. Winters, Elie M. Richa, Sandra C. Bryant, Craig D. Tauscher, Brenda J. Bendix, and James R. Stubbs BACKGROUND: Our institution has reported on delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction (DHTR) and delayed serologic transfusion reaction (DSTR) incidence changes. From January 1993 to June 2003, a polyethylene glycol (PEG) tube–based technique was used for red blood cell (RBC) antibody screen. In June 2003, a gel microcolumn technique was implemented. Impact of this on antibody detection and DHTR and DSTR incidence was investigated. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Positive antibody screen frequency and antibody specificity from January 2002 to March 2003 and July 2003 to September 2004 were compared. Overall incidence of DHTR and DSTR as well as the number and identity of the RBC antibodies implicated from August 1999 through June 2003 (PEG) and July 2003 through July 2007 (gel) were compared. The mean length of hospital stay (LOS) and number of RBC units transfused per patient were compared. RESULTS: Equivalent numbers of antibody screens were performed with equivalent numbers of positive screens. Significant differences were not seen in the detection of clinically significant antibodies but significantly fewer clinically insignificant antibodies were detected with gel. Ninety-six DHTRs and DSTRs were diagnosed. The LOS and number of transfused RBC units were not statistically different. A significantly higher incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs was seen with PEG compared to the gel. CONCLUSION: The gel microcolumn method is similar to the PEG in detecting clinically significant antibodies but detects fewer clinically insignificant antibodies. The implementation of gel resulted in a lower incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs compared to PEG. 1444 TRANSFUSION Volume 50, July 2010 D elayed complications of transfusion include delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction (DHTR) and delayed serologic transfusion reaction (DSTR). DHTR is the term used to describe the antibody-mediated destruction of transfused red blood cells (RBCs) resulting from an anamnestic or secondary immune response to foreign RBC antigens.1 DSTR is the term used to describe sensitization of transfused RBCs, without hemolysis.2 This may be due to a primary immune response with the development of a new antibody or an anamnestic response in an individual without accompanying evidence of enhanced clearance of the antibody-coated RBCs. Previous studies from the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) demonstrated increasing incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs from 1978 through 1992.3-6 Pineda and colleagues7 subsequently reported that during the time period 1980 to 1998, a significant increase in the incidence of DSTR and a trend toward a decrease in the incidence of DHTR was ABBREVIATIONS: DHTR(s) = delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction(s); DSTR(s) = delayed serologic transfusion reaction(s); LOS = length of hospital stay. From the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Transfusion Medicine, and the Department of Health Science Research, Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; and the Biological Sciences Division, Department of Pathology, and Blood Bank/Transfusion Medicine, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. Address reprint requests to: Jeffrey L. Winters, MD, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Transfusion Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905; e-mail: winters.jeffrey@mayo.edu. Received for publication November 12, 2009; revision received December 29, 2009, and accepted January 5, 2010. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2010.02609.x TRANSFUSION 2010;50:1444-1452. INCIDENCE OF DHTRS AND DSTRS, PEG VS. GEL seen. These findings were felt to be due to multiple factors including a decrease in the average length of hospital stay (LOS), decrease in the mean number of RBC units transfused per inpatient, and the implementation of a polyethylene glycol (PEG) antiglobulin RBC antibody detection technique, which replaced a less sensitive albumin and papain technique.7 In July 2003, the gel microcolumn technique was implemented at our institution, replacing the PEG antiglobulin tube technique used previously. This study was conducted to compare the sensitivity of the gel microcolumn technique and the PEG tube method as well as evaluate the impact of implementation of the gel microcolumn technique on the incidence of DHTR and DSTR. The frequency of positive antibody screens with each technique, as well as the specificities detected, was examined. The incidence of DHTR and DSTR with this system was compared to that seen with the PEG antiglobulin tube technique that had been utilized before July 2003. Potential factors that could influence the incidence of DHTR and DSTR, other than the sensitivity of the antibody detection system, such as LOS and the number of RBC units transfused per patient, were also examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS In January 1993, the PEG antiglobulin tube technique was implemented at our institution as the RBC antibody screening method. The PEG solution was prepared as described previously.8 Two drops of serum, one drop of 3% RBC screening cells, and three drops of PEG solution were incubated for 15 minutes at 37°C. Testing in anti-human globulin serum followed this. The 3% RBC screening panel consisted of three commercially prepared screening cells from Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. PEG was used as the enhancement medium for the antibody screening, antibody identification, and crossmatch procedures. In July 2003, a gel microcolumn technique replaced the PEG antiglobulin tube technique for pretransfusion antibody screening. A gel test (ID-MTS, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Raritan, NJ) was used with testing performed according to manufacturer’s instructions. The gel microcolumn technique utilizes a plastic microcolumn filled with dextran acrylamide gel containing antiglobulin reagent. To perform antibody screening, 50 mL of a 0.8% suspension of reagent RBC screening cells of known phenotype diluted in a low-ionic-strength saline were added to the labeled microcolumn. Three screening cells were used for each antibody screen. The cells were commercially prepared and were purchased from Ortho Clinical Diagnostics specifically for use with the ID-MTS gel test. Twenty-five microliters of patient plasma was added to the microcolumns. The microcolumns were then incubated at 37°C for 15 minutes in the MTS incubator. After incubation, the columns were centrifuged in the MTS centrifuge at 895 rpm for 10 minutes. The front and back of each microcolumn were read and graded according to manufacturer’s instructions.9 If antibodies in the patient samples coat the screening RBCs, agglutination by the antiglobulin reagent in the gel occurs with the gel trapping the agglutinated RBCs and preventing their migration to the bottom of the column. In contrast, nonagglutinated RBCs form a pellet in the bottom of the column. The presence or absence of RBC agglutination is indicated by the presence of cells trapped at the surface of the gel or at the bottom of the column, respectively. DHTRs or DSTRs were suspected when a new RBC antibody was detected in a recently transfused patient, within 3 to 4 weeks of transfusion. When this occurred, a laboratory evaluation was initiated. Direct antiglobulin testing (DAT) with polyspecific and monospecific reagents (anti-IgG and anti-C3d) was performed on patient samples obtained before (when available) and after transfusion of the implicated RBC units. In the presence of a positive DAT demonstrating IgG, RBC antibodies were eluted from the patient’s RBCs using an acid-stromal technique. The eluted antibodies were then identified using commercially prepared antibody identification panels. Before August 2003 and after February 2005, eluates were tested using a PEG tube method and read with the indirect antiglobulin test. For a 1.5-year period of the total 4-year period where gel microcolumn was used as the antibody screen method, from August 2003 to February 2005, the gel microcolumn technique was also used for antibody identification. For this procedure, the eluate was added to the gel column along with reagent RBCs of known phenotype. The columns were treated as described above. After the identification of the antibody specificity, patient cells were typed for the target antigen using commercially prepared or locally prepared typing sera, depending on the antibody specificity. Standard techniques were used for the DAT, elution, antibody identification, and antigen typing.10 The serologic criteria for DHTR and DSTR used at our institution have been previously described3-7 and have not changed from these previous reports. All of the following criteria were required for a diagnosis of DHTR or DSTR to be considered: 1) a new antibody identified in the patient’s serum, 2) a positive DAT demonstrating the presence of IgG, 3) an eluate from the patient’s RBCs demonstrated the presence of the same antibody that was identified in the serum, and 4) antigen typing of the patient’s RBCs demonstrated mixed-field typing for the antigen toward which the antibody in the patient’s serum and in the eluate was directed. No attempt was made to determine whether the new antibody represented a primary or a secondary (anamnestic) immune response. When a DHTR or DSTR was suspected, the clinical service responsible for the care of the patient was Volume 50, July 2010 TRANSFUSION 1445 WINTERS ET AL. questioned regarding pertinent signs and symptoms of hemolysis. Relevant laboratory values (e.g., hemoglobin [Hb], indirect bilirubin) were recorded for a period of up to 3 weeks after transfusion of the RBC units implicated in the potential reaction. Each case was reviewed by physicians in the Division of Transfusion Medicine at a daily conference. The clinical service was contacted as follow-up continued. Alternative explanations for laboratory abnormalities and/or clinical signs and symptoms were sought by examining each patient’s primary diagnosis, comorbidities, and medical history. The presence of an unexpected and otherwise unexplained posttransfusion decline in Hb of at least 1 g/dL from the immediate posttransfusion level favored a diagnosis of DHTR. However, if alternative explanations for the decline existed, at least one additional sign or symptom of hemolysis was required to make the diagnosis, as outlined in Table 1 and used in our previous studies.3-7 A diagnosis of DHTR or DSTR was made after sufficient time had elapsed to detect hemolysis and after an adequate number of laboratory results had been collected and reviewed. This approach to making a diagnosis of DHTR or DSTR has not changed since originally implemented in 1980 and is identical to that used in our previous studies.3-7 Diagnoses were made while the patient was still in the hospital or shortly after discharge. For this study, the results of antibody screens performed from January 2002 to March 2003 (PEG tube method) and July 2003 to September 2004 (gel microcolumn method) were examined with regard to the total incidence of positive results, the incidence of antibodies TABLE 1. Signs and symptoms considered evidence of clinical hemolysis • Elevation of the serum indirect bilirubin • Elevation of serum creatinine • Reduction in serum haptoglobin by at least 50% from the pretransfusion level • Hemosiderinuria • Hemoglobinuria • Hemoglobinemia • Unexplained fever • Decreased urine output toward antigens within different blood groups, the incidence of clinically significant antibodies, and the incidence of clinically insignificant antibodies that are not associated with decreased RBC survival. These time periods were different from those used for the DHTR and DSTR portion of the study due to limitations in the availability of antibody screening data between August 1999 and January 2002. An F test for the comparison of Poisson incidence rate was used to compare these incidences for the two techniques. DHTR and DSTR data from August 1999 through June 2007 were reviewed. The overall incidence rates of DHTR and DSTR as well as the incidence rates for RBC antibodies toward antigens within different blood groups were calculated and compared for the two periods using an F test. Data on the mean LOS and the number of transfused RBC units were collected from hospital databases. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare these variables. RESULTS From January 2002 to March 2003, a total of 51,814 antibody screens were performed using the PEG tube technique, of which 1044 were positive. From July 2003 to September 2004, a total of 51,895 antibody screens were performed using the gel microcolumn method, of which 1005 were positive. The incidence of a positive antibody screen during the two time periods was not statistically different (p = 0.19). Table 2 shows the number and incidence of antibodies detected during the two time periods separated into the blood group containing the antigen toward which the antibody was detected. Using these broad antibody categories, no significant differences were detected between the PEG and gel techniques (all p ⱖ 0.10). Table 3 shows the number and percentage of antibodies grouped according to whether the antibodies are considered to be clinically significant, those which cause decreased RBC survival or hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN), or clinically insignificant, not associated with decreased RBC survival or HDFN. The gel microcolumn technique detected more clinically TABLE 2. Incidence of antibodies detected with PEG and gel techniques separated by blood group* Blood group Number of antibody screens performed Kidd Kell Duffy Rh MNS * Data are reported as number, IR (95% CI). IR = incidence rate per 10,000 antibody screens. 1446 TRANSFUSION Volume 50, July 2010 53, 148, 62, 384, 59, PEG technique 51,814 10.229 (7.662, 13.380) 28.564 (24.147, 33.554) 11.966 (9.174, 15.340) 74.111 (66.883, 81.907) 11.387 (8.668, 14.688) 52, 171, 58, 404, 61, Gel technique 51,895 10.020 (7.484, 13.140) 32.951 (28.197, 38.277) 11.176 (8.487, 14.448) 77.850 (70.442, 85.824) 11.755 (8.991, 15.099) p-value 0.46 0.10 0.36 0.25 0.43 INCIDENCE OF DHTRS AND DSTRS, PEG VS. GEL TABLE 3. Number and percentage of antibodies detected with PEG and gel techniques separated by clinical significance Antibody specificity Clinically significant antibodies D C E c e f Cw G RH 7 (Ce) K Kpa Fya Fyb S s Jka Jkb Jk3 Lua Dia Wra LWa Coa Cob ATLIA Total clinically significant Clinically insignificant antibodies M N P1 Lea Leb Bg Cha Rg Sda Ytb McCa Sla HTLA Passive anti-D Warm autoantibody Cold autoantibody Nonspecific reactivity Total clinically insignificant Number PEG technique Percentage of positive antibody screens Number Gel technique Percentage of positive antibody screens 81 47 192 37 5 0 20 2 0 144 4 59 3 12 4 46 6 1 4 1 0 0 1 2 10 681 7.8 4.5 18.4 3.5 0.5 0 1.9 0.2 0 13.8 0.4 5.7 0.3 1.1 0.4 4.4 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 1.0 65.2 99 53 188 44 14 1 4 0 1 169 2 54 4 18 2 39 13 0 5 0 1 1 0 0 16 728 9.9 5.3 18.7 4.4 1.4 0.1 0.4 0 0.1 16.8 0.2 5.4 0.4 1.8 0.2 3.9 1.3 0 0.5 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.6 72.4 39 4 35 24 7 3 0 0 3 2 1 1 40 35 72 97 0 363 3.7 0.4 3.4 2.3 0.7 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 3.8 3.4 6.9 9.3 0 34.8 39 2 2 4 1 12 1 1 1 0 0 0 26 52 75 29 32 277 3.9 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 2.6 5.2 7.5 2.9 3.2 27.6 ATLIA = antibody to low-incidence antigen; HTLA = high-titer low-avidity antibody. significant antibodies (728 gel vs. 681 PEG), but this was not significant (p = 0.11). The gel microcolumn technique detected fewer clinically insignificant antibodies (277 gel vs. 363 PEG, p = 0.0004). In addition, the incidence of selected specificities was compared. Two clinically significant antibodies were significantly different between PEG and gel techniques. Anti-Cw was detected significantly more frequently using the PEG technique (p = 0.01), while anti-e was more frequently detected with the gel microcolumn technique (p = 0.046). The frequency of detection of seven clinically insignificant antibodies was significantly different between PEG and gel techniques. Anti-P1 (p = 0.004), anti-Lea (p = 0.005), hightiter low-avidity antibody (p = 0.0495), and cold autoantibodies (p < 0.0001) were detected more frequently with PEG than with the gel microcolumn technique. Anti-Bg and passive anti-D were detected significantly more frequently (both p = 0.04) in gel than with the PEG technique. The presence of nonspecific reactivity was not significantly higher with gel compared to PEG (p = 0.10), despite the absence of nonspecific reactivity with the PEG technique. During the August 1999 to June 2007 time period, 95 subjects (55 females and 40 males) who experienced a Volume 50, July 2010 TRANSFUSION 1447 WINTERS ET AL. DHTR or DSTR were identified. All of these patients fulfilled the criteria defined above and all were included in this study. Of note, one patient experienced two reactions (a DHTR and a separate DSTR identified 2 weeks later), and as a result, 96 total reactions were identified. The specificities and frequencies of the antibodies causing reactions during each time period are listed in Table 4. Table 5 shows the number and incidence of DHTR and DSTR for the periods August 1999 to May 2003 and from July 2003 to June 2007. From August 1999 to May 2003, a total of 32,394 patients were transfused and 27 cases of DHTR and 53 cases of DSTR were detected. From July 2003 to June 2007, a total of 34,618 patients were transfused and five cases of DHTR and 11 cases of DSTR were detected. During the two time periods, there was no statistical difference in hospital LOS (median, 18 days [range 2-187] vs. 14 days [range 2-35], p = 0.056) or the number of transfused RBC units (median 6 units [range 2-81] vs. 4.5 units [range 1-42], p = 0.31). As shown in Table 5, there was a significantly higher incidence of DHTR and DSTR in association with the PEG technique compared to the gel microcolumn technique (p < 0.003). Table 6 shows the number and incidence of DHTR and DSTR during the two time periods separated into the blood group containing the antigen toward which the antibody causing the reaction was directed. Looking at these broad categories of major blood groups, a significantly greater number of DHTRs and DSTRs were seen TABLE 4. Distribution of antibodies involved in DSTRs and DHTRs Antibody involved in reaction C E c e RH 7 (Ce) Fya Fyb Jka Jkb K M S C, Jka E, Jka, K E, K E, S E, c e, C Frequency* 0 19 7 2 0 16 2 19 5 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 PEG technique Percentage of reactions 0 23.75 8.75 2.5 0 20 2.5 23.75 6.25 1.25 2.5 2.5 1.25 0 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Frequency 1 5 1 1 1 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Gel technique Percentage of reactions 6.25 31.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 18.75 0 12.5 0 6.25 0 0 0 6.25 0 0 0 0 * One patient experienced both DHTR and DSTR, so there are 96 total reactions in 95 patients. TABLE 5. Incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs with PEG and gel techniques* Number of people transfused DHTRs detected number/incidence DSTRs detected number/incidence PEG technique (August 1999–May 2003) 32,394 27, 8.335 (5.493-12.127) 53, 16.361 (12.256-21.401) Gel technique (July 2003–July 2007) 34,618 5, 1.444 (0.469-3.371) 11, 3.178 (1.586-5.685) p-value 0.002 <0.0001 * Data are reported as number, IR (95% CI). IR = incidence rate per 10,000 patients transfused. TABLE 6. Incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs by blood group antibody in PEG and gel techniques* Blood group containing antigen toward which the antibody was directed Kidd Kell Duffy Rh MNS PEG technique 25, 7.717 (4.994, 11.393) 2, 0.617 (0.075, 2.230) 18, 5.557 (3.293, 8.782) 33, 10.187 (7.012, 14.306) 5, 1.543 (0.501, 3.602) * Data are reported as number, IR (95% CI). IR = incidence rate per 10,000 people with transfusions. 1448 TRANSFUSION Volume 50, July 2010 3, 2, 3, 10, Gel technique 0.867 (0.179, 2.533) 0.578 (0.070, 2.087) 0.867 (0.179, 2.533) 2.889 (1.385, 5.312) 0, 0 (0, 1.066) p-value 0.005 0.47 0.01 0.001 0.02 INCIDENCE OF DHTRS AND DSTRS, PEG VS. GEL TABLE 7. Antibody specificities identified in more than five instances of DHTRs or DSTRs* PEG Antibody E C Fya Jka Jkb DHTR 4 (15) 0 (0) 6 (22) 9 (33) 2 (7) Gel DSTR 15 (28) 7 (13) 10 (19) 10 (19) 3 (6) DHTR 2 (40) 0 (0) 1 (20) 1 (20) 0 (0) DSTR 3 (27) 1 (9) 2 (18) 1 (9) 0 (0) * Data are reported as number (%). during the time period when the PEG technique was used for all major blood groups, except Kell. Finally, Table 7 shows alloantibody specificities seen in five or more instances of DHTR and DSTR in the two time periods. Because of the small number of DHTRs and DSTRs caused by individual specificities, statistical analysis comparing the incidence of individual specificities between the two periods would not be valid and was not performed. DISCUSSION Factors that influence the incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs include LOS, mean number of RBC units transfused per patient, and the sensitivity of the antibody detection system used in pretransfusion screening.7 As the mean LOS decreases, there is a reduced opportunity to detect delayed transfusion complications. This could result in a failure to detect the appearance of the antibody resulting in an apparent decrease in the incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs. Also, decreased LOS could result in the potential to misclassify a DHTR as a DSTR due to a failure to detect clinical hemolysis. Such misclassifications may result in the erroneous conclusion of a decreased incidence of DHTR accompanied by a concurrent increase in the incidence of DSTRs. In this study, LOS was not significantly different between the two time periods, excluding this as an explanation for the difference in incidence of DHTR and DSTR. A reduction in RBC antigen exposure due to a decrease in RBC transfusion could also influence the incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs. The transfusion of fewer RBC units per patient, due to changes in medical practice, would expose patients to fewer foreign RBC antigens. This would result in a decrease in the opportunity for a patient to develop an immune response to an RBC antigen that would, in turn, decrease DHTR and DSTR incidence. The mean number of units of RBCs transfused per patient during the two time periods was not significantly different. Differences in RBC unit transfusion practices do not explain the difference in the incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs seen. Finally, the sensitivity of the antibody detection system used in pretransfusion screening can influence DHTR and DSTR incidence. RBC antibodies present at the time of pretransfusion testing, but with reactivity below the threshold of detection of an antibody detection system, could result in a DHTR or a DSTR. If an antibody is not detected, RBC units expressing the antigenic target of the antibody could be transfused. This could result in an anamnestic response by the patient’s immune system with the development of what appears to be a “new” antibody as the titer of the antibody increases. This would result in a DHTR or DSTR, depending on the patient’s ability to clear the antibody-coated RBCs. The incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs should be lower when more sensitive RBC antibody detection systems are employed since RBC alloantibodies will be more readily detected during pretransfusion testing. The result will be the provision of antigen-negative RBC units with the avoidance of antigenic stimulation. The gel microcolumn technique was first described by Lapierre and colleagues in 1990.11 It offers several potential advantages over tube techniques in that it can be automated, the test endpoints lack the variability resulting from different operators performing the test as seen in tube-based methods, and the test endpoints are stable for up to 24 hours such that results can be reviewed at a later time if necessary.12 Another potential advantage over tube techniques would be increased sensitivity due to the fact that the gel microcolumn method does not require a wash step, which could potentially remove weakly bound antibodies.12 The clinical performance of RBC antibody detection systems varies and can be evaluated by comparing the ability of the systems to detect clinically significant antibodies (“wanted antibodies” such as antibodies to Rh, Kell, and Kidd system antigens) and those that are not clinically significant (“unwanted antibodies” such as coldreacting alloantibodies, cold-reacting autoantibodies, and high-titer low-avidity antibodies).13 Determining the clinical performance of new systems usually involves retrospective studies where the frequency of antibodies identified during two time periods are compared or studies, either prospective or retrospective, using stored samples, that test samples in parallel with both methods being evaluated.14 Another way to evaluate the clinical performance of two antibody detection systems is by determining the incidence of hemolytic transfusion reactions during the time periods when the systems were in use.14 Limited reports have been published on the use of these methods to compare the gel microcolumn and PEG tube techniques.15,16 Novaretti and colleagues15 prospectively performed antibody screening of 10,123 random samples submitted to their reference laboratory with both the PEG tube technique and the gel microcolumn method. Of the samples Volume 50, July 2010 TRANSFUSION 1449 WINTERS ET AL. tested, 628 (6.2%) contained RBC alloantibodies. The gel microcolumn technique identified 196 reactive samples that were negative with the PEG tube technique. These discordant samples included 152 antibodies directed toward antigens in the Rh blood group system, 18 anti-K antibodies, and seven anti-Jka. Two samples reacted only using the PEG tube technique but not with the gel technique (one anti-K and one anti-Dia) while 430 samples were reactive using both methods.15 The difference in the number of antibodies detected by each system was significant (p < 0.01) favoring the gel system. This prospective study using fresh samples demonstrated superior sensitivity of the gel technique compared to the PEG tube technique.15 Combs and Bredehoeft16 compared the sensitivity of the PEG tube technique to the gel microcolumn method by comparing both the frequency of clinically significant and clinically insignificant antibodies and the incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs in two consecutive 1-year periods where the different techniques were used for pretransfusion testing. During the period that the PEG tube technique was used, a total of 3,085 antibodies were detected. Of these, 71% were considered clinically significant while 29% were considered “unwanted” or clinically insignificant. During the year in which the gel technique was used, 2715 antibodies were identified of which 80% were considered “wanted” and 20% were considered clinically insignificant. Combs and Bredehoeft considered these findings to indicate equivalent sensitivity, equivalent ability to detect clinically significant antibodies, and superior specificity in that fewer clinically insignificant antibodies were detected by the gel microcolumn technique.16 During the period when the PEG tube technique was used, one DHTR occurred due to anti-S. In addition, there were 21 missed alloantibodies (two anti-D, four anti-E, three anti-c, three anti-Jka, two anti-Jkb, three anti-Fya, one combination of anti-c and anti-E, and one with a combination of anti-E and anti-Jka), which resulted in DSTR in 19 patients. With the gel microcolumn technique, no DHTRs were seen and there were 11 missed alloantibodies (one anti-D, two anti-c, three anti-K, one anti-Jka, and two with the combination of anti-E and anti-Fya), which caused DSTRs in nine patients.16 The authors reported that overall, the gel technique detected slightly more Rh and Kell antibodies but fewer anti-Jka antibodies.16 Our study, like that performed by Combs and Bredehoeft, determined sensitivity by examining the frequency with which antibodies were detected in two time periods using two different methods. Our finding was that the gel microcolumn method of detecting antibodies showed similar sensitivity to that of the PEG tube method. These findings are similar to those reported by Combs and Bredehoeft. Like Combs and Bredehoeft, we did detect more antibodies to Rh and Kell blood group system antigens but 1450 TRANSFUSION Volume 50, July 2010 these differences were not significant (Rh p = 0.25, Kell p = 0.10). Similarly, fewer examples of anti-Jka were seen with gel but again, the difference was not significant. Enhanced sensitivity of the gel microcolumn method was not demonstrated across multiple blood group systems in our study, with an insignificant increase in the incidence in antibodies detected (Table 2). In examining the frequency of clinically significant and clinically insignificant antibodies, we saw similar frequency to that reported by Combs and Bredehoeft, 66% significant and 34% insignificant versus 71 and 29%16 for PEG tube method and 72% significant and 28% insignificant versus 80 and 20%16 for gel. Overall, the detection of clinically significant antibodies was not statistically different between the two methods in our study. Two clinically significant antibodies did demonstrate significant differences between PEG tube method and gel. Anti-Cw was more frequently detected with PEG tube and anti-e was more frequently detected with gel. A possible explanation for the former could be differences in the antigen profiles of the screening cells used in the two methods. The frequency with which the Cw antigen is present on screening cells varies between manufacturers. During the PEG period, commercially prepared 3% screening cells from Ortho Clinical Diagnostics were used. During the period when the gel microcolumn technique was used, 0.8% screening cells from Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, specifically for use with the ID-MTS system, were used. It is possible that the presence of the Cw antigen was less frequent in these screening cells. This would explain the lower incidence of anti-Cw detection with the gel method. This explanation is not valid when speaking about the e antigen, however, as most if not all screening cells will have this antigen present. Overall, the gel microcolumn technique did demonstrate a significantly lower frequency of detecting clinically insignificant antibodies. Exceptions were the detection of anti-Bg and passive anti-D, which were more frequently seen with the gel microcolumn technique. Our study demonstrated a significant decrease in the incidence of DHTR or DSTR for all blood groups when the gel microcolumn technique was used, with the exception of the Kell blood group system. For the Kell blood group system, a significant difference in the incidence of DHTRs or DSTRs was not seen between the time periods (Table 6). With regard to the sensitivity of the two systems when used for screening, in our hands, both were equivalent with regard to the detection of antibodies to all blood group system antigens, including Kell system antigens (Table 2). Combs and Bredehoeft did report three anti-K antibodies causing DSTR during the gel technique period but felt that overall, based on the frequency of clinically significant antibodies identified, the gel microcolumn technique was more sensitive to Kell system antibodies than PEG tube technique.16 Similarly, Novaretti and INCIDENCE OF DHTRS AND DSTRS, PEG VS. GEL coworkers15 reported that one anti-K was detectable only by the PEG tube method and 18 instances of anti-K that were detected only by the gel microcolumn technique. In our study, only two cases of DHTR or DSTR due to antibodies to Kell system antigens were seen in each time period. In all four cases, the antibody causing the reaction was anti-K. The small number of cases means that this finding should be interpreted with caution considering the previously reported findings by Combs and Bredehoeft and Novaretti and colleagues. These findings point out that not all antibodies to a given antigen will be detected by a given test system. The overall decline in the incidence of DHTR or DSTR with the use of the gel microcolumn technique is difficult to explain. Such a decline could occur due to changes in risks for DHTR or DSTR such as decreased LOS or decreased RBC exposure or if the sensitivity of the two detection systems were different. We failed to demonstrate any significant differences in LOS and RBC exposure between the time periods when the PEG tube and gel microcolumn techniques were used. We also could not demonstrate differences in sensitivity between the two methods with regard to clinically significant antibodies. Another consideration would be the fact that for a 1.5-year period during the time when the gel microcolumn technique was used for antibody screening, it was also used for antibody identification of the eluates. During the period that the gel technique was used for eluate antibody ID, a total of two DHTRs (1.3/year) and four DSTRs (2.7/year) were identified (data not shown). During the period when PEG tube method was used for eluate antibody ID, three DHTRs (1.2/year) and seven DSTRs (2.8/year) were identified (data not shown). These numbers are similar. As already stated, the PEG method and the gel microcolumn technique demonstrated similar sensitivities and therefore this should not have influenced the incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs. The possible exceptions would be for the two clinically significant antibodies where differences in sensitivity were identified, anti-Cw and anti-e. During both periods, there were no instances where anti-Cw was implicated in DHTRs or DSTRs. With regard to anti-e, the number of cases of DHTRs and DSTRs due to anti-e were similar in the two periods, two (2.5%) with the PEG tube method and one (6.25%) with the gel microcolumn technique. It therefore appears that the use of the gel method for antibody identification of the eluates does not explain the decline in the incidence in DHTRs and DSTRs observed. The explanation for the lower incidence of DHTRs or DSTRs with the gel technique is not readily apparent. While our study found findings similar to those seen by Combs and Bredehoeft, similar sensitivity between the two methods for clinically significant antibodies, fewer clinically insignificant antibodies detected by gel, and a decreased frequency of both DHTRs and DSTRs with the gel microcolumn technique, our study has several advantages over that of Combs and Bredehoeft. First, we were able to perform a statistical analysis of the incidence of antibodies detected with the two methods when used for antibody screening, not simply a listing of antibody frequencies. This showed that while differences in detection seen in our study are comparable to those reported by Combs and Bredehoeft, not all of these were significant. Another advantage was that we were able to exclude additional factors that could explain differences in the incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs independent of the test system used to perform antibody screening. Unlike the study by Combs and Bredehoeft, we excluded changes in LOS and mean number of RBC units transfused per patient as possible explanations for the observed decline in the incidence of these reactions. We also examined the incidence of reactions over longer periods, 4 years before and after implementation of the gel microcolumn technique, and examined more cases of DHTRs and DSTRs. A weakness of our study is the inability to identify the incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs with the two techniques with regard to individual antibody specificities. This resulted from the small number of DHTRs and DSTRs due to single antibody specificities that occurred during the two time periods. These small numbers precluded a meaningful statistical analysis. As a result, the incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs due to antibodies to antigens within specific blood groups was compared. To legitimately examine individual specificities, a larger sample size of DHTRs and DSTRs would be required. To increase automation in our laboratory, the gel microcolumn technique was discontinued in July 2007 and replaced with a solidphase RBC adherence technique precluding further identification of DHTRs and DSTRs in patients screened with the gel microcolumn technique. In summary, the gel microcolumn method detected similar numbers of antibodies compared to the PEG tube method. We could not demonstrate enhanced sensitivity for clinically significant antibodies. The gel microcolumn technique did, however, detect fewer clinically insignificant antibodies. This would be beneficial in routine daily laboratory work because it would minimize necessary evaluation of these antibodies. The incidence of DHTRs and DSTRs demonstrated a significant decrease after implementation of the gel microcolumn technique, suggesting enhanced safety of the gel technique compared to the PEG tube method. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors certify that they have no affiliation with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. Volume 50, July 2010 TRANSFUSION 1451 WINTERS ET AL. REFERENCES 1. Mollison PL, Engelfriet CP, Contreras M. Blood transfusion in clinical medicine. 10th ed. Oxford: Blackwell; 1997. p. 376. 2. Ness PM, Shirey RS, Thoman SK, Buck SA. The differentia- 8. Nance SJ, Garratty G. A new potentiator of red blood cell antigen-antibody reactions. Am J Clin Pathol 1987;87: 633-5. 9. Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. ID-MTS gel test procedure manual. Version 3.0. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics. Raritan (NJ): Ortho Clinical Diagnostics; July 2002. tion of delayed serologic and delayed hemolytic transfu- 10. Roback JD, Combs MR, Grossman BJ, Hillyer CD, editors. sion reactions: incidence, long-term serologic findings, and clinical significance. Transfusion 1990;30:688-93. Technical manual. 16th ed. Bethesda (MD): AABB; 2008. 11. Lapierre Y, Rigal D, Adam J, Josef D, Meyer F, Greber S, 3. Taswell HF, Pineda AA, Moore SB. Hemolytic transfusion reactions: frequency and clinical and laboratory aspects. In: Bell CA, editor. A seminar on immune-mediated cell destruction. Washington, DC: American Association of Blood Banks; 1981. p. 71-92. 4. Pineda AA, Taswell HF, Brzica SM. Delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction. An immunologic hazard of blood transfusion. Transfusion 1978;18:1-7. 5. Moore SB, Taswell HF, Pineda AA, Sonnenberg CL. Delayed hemolytic transfusion reactions. Evidence of the need for an improved pretransfusion compatibility test. Am J Clin Pathol 1980;74:94-7. 6. Vamvakas EC, Pineda AA, Reisner R, Santrach PJ, Moore SB. The differentiation of delayed hemolytic and delayed serologic transfusion reactions: incidence and predictors of hemolysis. Transfusion 1995;35:26-32. 7. Pineda AA, Vamvakas EC, Gorden LD, Winters JL, Moore SB. Trends in the incidence of delayed hemolytic and delayed serologic transfusion reactions. Transfusion 1999; 39:1097-103. 1452 TRANSFUSION Volume 50, July 2010 Drot C. The gel test: a new way to detect red cell antigenantibody reaction. Transfusion 1990;30:109-13. 12. Bromilow IM. Gel techniques in blood group serology. Med Lab Sci 1992;49:129-32. 13. Judd WJ, Steiner EA, Knafl PC, Masters C. The gel test: use in the identification of unexpected antibodies to blood group antigens. Immunohematology 1998;14:59-62. 14. Casina TS. In search of the Holy Grail: comparison of antibody screening methods. Immunohematology 2006;22: 196-202. 15. Novaretti MC, Silveria EJ, Filho EC, Dorlhiac-Llacer PE, Chamone DA. Comparison of tube and gel techniques for antibody identification. Immunohematology 2000;16:13841. 16. Combs MR, Bredehoeft SJ. Selecting an acceptable and safe antibody detection test can present a dilemma. Immunohematology 2001;17:86-9.