Search

* Context.--Substantial variability between different antibody titration methods has been identified since the development and introduction of the uniform procedure in 2008. Objective.--To determine whether more recent methods or techniques decrease interlaboratory and intralaboratory variation measured using proficiency testing. Design.--Proficiency test data for antibody titration between 2014 and 2018 were obtained from the College of American Pathologists. Interlaboratory and intralaboratory variations were compared by analyzing the distribution of titer results by method and phase, comparing the results against the supplier's quality control titer, and by evaluating the distribution of paired titer results when each laboratory received a sample with the same titer twice. Results.--A total of 1337 laboratories participated in the antibody titer proficiency test during the study period. Only 54.1 % (5874 of 10 852) of anti-D and 63.4% (3603 of 5680) of anti-A reported responses were within 1 titer of the supplier's intended result. Review of the agreement between laboratories of the same methodology found that 78.4% (3139 of 4004) for anti-A and 89.0% (9655 of 10 852) of laboratory responses for anti-D fell within 1 titer of the mode response. When provided with 2 consecutive samples of the same titer (anti-D titer: 16), 85% (367 of 434) of laboratories using the uniform procedure and 80% (458 of 576) using the other method reported a titer difference of 1 or less. Conclusions.--Despite advances, interlaboratory and intralaboratory variance for this assay remains high in comparison with the strong reliance on titer results in clinical practice. There needs to be a reevaluation of the role of this test in clinical decision-making. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2023;147:1351-1359; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2022-0248-CP), Antibody titration in transfusion medicine is a commonly used clinical assay to detect the strength of reactivity of red cell antibodies present in a patient's plasma. (1) There are a [...]

* Context.--Modern RHD genotyping can be used to determine when patients with serologic weak D phenotypes have RHD gene variants at risk for anti-D alloimmunization. However, serologic testing, RhD interpretations, and laboratory management of these patients are quite variable. Objective.--To obtain interlaboratory comparisons of serologic testing, RhD interpretations, Rh immune globulin (RhIG) management, fetomaternal hemorrhage testing, and RHD genotyping for weak D-reactive specimens. Design.--We devised an educational exercise in which 81 transfusion services supporting obstetrics performed tube-method RhD typing on 2 unknown red blood cell challenge specimens identified as (1) maternal and (2) newborn. Both specimens were from the same weak D-reactive donor. The exercise revealed how participants responded to these different clinical situations. Results.--Of reporting laboratories, 14% (11 of 80) obtained discrepant immediate-spin reactions on the 2 specimens. Nine different reporting terms were used to interpret weak D-reactive maternal RhD types to obstetricians. In laboratories obtaining negative maternal immediate-spin reactions, 28% (16 of 57) performed unwarranted antiglobulin testing, sometimes leading to recommendations against giving RhIG. To screen for excess fetomaternal hemorrhage after a weak D-reactive newborn, 47% (34 of 73) of reporting laboratories would have employed a contraindicated fetal rosette test, risking false-negative results and inadequate RhIG coverage. Sixty percent (44 of 73) of laboratories would obtain RHD genotyping in some or all cases. Conclusions.--For obstetric and neonatal patients with serologic weak D phenotypes, we found several critical problems in transfusion service laboratory practices. We provide recommendations for appropriate testing, consistent immunohematologic terminology, and RHD genotype-guided management of Rh immune globulin therapy and RBC transfusions., In the United States and Canada, 0.06% to 2.2% of patients have red blood cells (RBCs) that type weakly reactive for RhD, termed 'serologic weak D phenotype.' (1-6) In past [...]

* Context.--ABO mistransfusions are rare and potentially fatal events. Protocols are required by regulatory agencies to minimize this risk to patients, but how these are applied in the context of massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) is not specifically defined. Objective.--To evaluate the approaches used by transfusion services for switching from universally compatible to patient ABO type-specific blood components during massive hemorrhage. Design.--We added 1 supplemental multiple-choice question to address the study objective to the 2019 College of American Pathologists proficiency test J-survey (J-A 2019). We also reviewed the available literature regarding this topic. Results.--A total of 881 laboratories responded to the supplemental question. Approximately 80% (704 of 881) reported a policy for ABO-type switching during an MTP. Policies varied considerably between responding laboratories, but most (384 of 704, 55%) required 2 ABO types to match before switching from universal to recipient-specific blood components. Additional safety measures used in a minority of these protocols included reaction strength criteria (103 of 704, 15%), on-call medical director approval (41 0f 704, 5.8%), universal red cell unit number limits (12 of 704, 1.7%), or the presence of a mixed field (3 of 704, 0.4%). Conclusions.--This survey reveals that significant heterogeneity exists regarding the available approaches for ABO-type switching during an MTP. Specific expert guidance regarding this issue is very limited, and best practices have not yet been established or rigorously investigated., In the United States, many hospitals have now adopted massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) to ensure that patients with life-threatening hemorrhage receive red cells and plasma in a safe, timely, evidence-based, [...]