Open AccessEvaluation of Four Bedside Test Systems for Card Performance, Handling and Safety
Author(s) -
Felix Giebel,
Susanne M. Picker,
Birgit Gathof
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
transfusion medicine and hemotherapy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.971
H-Index - 39
eISSN - 1660-3818
pISSN - 1660-3796
DOI - 10.1159/000111385
Subject(s) - abo blood group system , medicine , agglutination (biology) , blood typing , test (biology) , transfusion medicine , blood transfusion , surgery , antibody , immunology , biology , paleontology
SUMMARY: OBJECTIVE: Pretransfusion ABO compatibility testing is a simple and required precaution against ABO-incompatible transfusion, which is one of the greatest threats in transfusion medicine. While distinct agglutination is most important for correct test interpretation, protection against infectious diseases and ease of handling are crucial for accurate test performance. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate differences in test card design, handling, and user safety. DESIGN: Four different bedside test cards with pre-applied antibodies were evaluated by 100 medical students using packed red blood cells of different ABO blood groups. Criteria of evaluation were: agglutination, labelling, handling, and safety regarding possible user injuries. Criteria were rated subjectively according to German school notes ranging from 1 = very good to 6 = very bad/insufficient. RESULTS: Overall, all cards received very good/good marks. The ABO blood group was identified correctly in all cases. Three cards (no. 1, no. 3, no. 4) received statistically significant (p < 0.008) prominence (mean values shown) concerning clearness of agglutination (1.7-1.9 vs. 2.4 for no. 2). Systems with dried antibodies (no. 2, no. 4) outmatched the other systems with respect to overall test system performance (2.0 vs. 2.8-2.9), labelling (1.5 vs. 2.2-2.4), handling (1.9-2.0 vs. 2.5), and user safety (2.5 vs. 3.4). Analysis of card self-explanation revealed no remarkable differences. CONCLUSION: Despite good performance of all card systems tested, the best results when including all criteria evaluated were obtained with card no. 4 (particularly concerning clear agglutination), followed by cards no. 2, no. 1, and no. 3.