Premium
Preliminary evaluation of a gel tube agglutination major cross‐match method in dogs
Author(s) -
Villarnovo Dania,
Burton Shelley A.,
Horney Barbara S.,
MacKenzie Allan L.,
Vanderstichel Raphaël
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
veterinary clinical pathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.537
H-Index - 51
eISSN - 1939-165X
pISSN - 0275-6382
DOI - 10.1111/vcp.12374
Subject(s) - agglutination (biology) , tube (container) , direct agglutination test , chromatography , medicine , chemistry , antibody , materials science , immunology , serology , composite material
Background A major cross‐match gel tube test is available for use in dogs yet has not been clinically evaluated. Objectives This study compared cross‐match results obtained using the gel tube and the standard tube methods for canine samples. Methods Study 1 included 107 canine sample donor–recipient pairings cross‐match tested with the RapidVet‐H method gel tube test and compared results with the standard tube method. Additionally, 120 pairings using pooled sera containing anti‐canine erythrocyte antibody at various concentrations were tested with leftover blood from a hospital population to assess sensitivity and specificity of the gel tube method in comparison with the standard method. Results The gel tube method had a good relative specificity of 96.1% in detecting lack of agglutination (compatibility) compared to the standard tube method. Agreement between the 2 methods was moderate. Nine of 107 pairings showed agglutination/incompatibility on either test, too few to allow reliable calculation of relative sensitivity. Fifty percent of the gel tube method results were difficult to interpret due to sample spreading in the reaction and/or negative control tubes. Conclusions The RapidVet‐H method agreed with the standard cross‐match method on compatible samples, but detected incompatibility in some sample pairs that were compatible with the standard method. Evaluation using larger numbers of incompatible pairings is needed to assess diagnostic utility. The gel tube method results were difficult to categorize due to sample spreading. Weak agglutination reactions or other factors such as centrifuge model may be responsible.