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

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.