Comparison of a commercial blood cross-matching kit to the standard laboratory method for establishing blood transfusion compatibility in dogs.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of a commercial blood transfusion cross-match kit when compared to the standard laboratory method for establishing blood transfusion compatibility. DESIGN: A prospective observational in intro study performed from July 2009 to July 2013. SETTING: Private referral veterinary center. ANIMALS: Ten healthy dogs, 11 anemic dogs, and 24 previously transfused dogs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five dogs were enrolled in a prospective study in order to compare the standard blood transfusion cross-match technique to a commercial blood transfusion cross-matching kit. These dogs were divided into 3 different groups that included 10 healthy dogs (control group), 11 anemic dogs in need of a blood transfusion, and 24 sick dogs that were previously transfused. Thirty-five dogs diagnosed with anemia secondary to multiple disease processes were cross-matched using both techniques. All dogs cross-matched via the kit had a compatible major and minor result, whereas 16 dogs out of 45 (35%) had an incompatible cross-match result when the standard laboratory technique was performed. The average time to perform the commercial kit was 15 minutes and this was 3 times shorter than the manual cross-match laboratory technique that averaged 45-50 minutes to complete. CONCLUSIONS: While the gel-based cross-match kit is quicker and less technically demanding than standard laboratory cross-match procedures, microagglutination and low-grade hemolysis are difficult to identify by using the gel-based kits. This could result in transfusion reactions if the gel-based kits are used as the sole determinant of blood compatibility prior to transfusion. Based on our results, the standard manual cross-match technique remains the gold standard test to determine blood transfusion compatibility.