Fachbereich Veterinärmedizin


Service-Navigation

    Publikationsdatenbank

    Clinical evaluation of the QuickVet/RapidVet canine dog erythrocyte antigen 1.1 blood-typing test (2012)

    Art
    Zeitschriftenartikel / wissenschaftlicher Beitrag
    Autoren
    Kohn, Barbara (WE 20)
    Classe, Gabriele (WE 20)
    Weingart, Christiane (WE 20)
    Quelle
    Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians; 24(3) — S. 539–545
    ISSN: 1040-6387
    Sprache
    Englisch
    Verweise
    URL (Volltext): http://edocs.fu-berlin.de/docs/receive/FUDOCS_document_000000020220
    DOI: 10.1177/1040638712442880
    Pubmed: 22529121
    Kontakt
    Klinik für kleine Haustiere

    Oertzenweg 19 b
    Haus 1
    14163 Berlin
    +49 30 838 62356
    kleintierklinik@vetmed.fu-berlin.de

    Abstract / Zusammenfassung

    In transfusion medicine, blood typing is an integral part of pretransfusion testing. The objective of the current study was the clinical evaluation of an automated canine cartridge dog erythrocyte antigen (DEA) 1.1 blood-typing method (QuickVet/RapidVet) and comparison of the results with a gel column-based method (ID-Gel Test Canine DEA 1.1). Ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid-anticoagulated blood samples from 11 healthy and 85 sick dogs were available for typing. Before blood typing, all samples were tested for agglutination and hemolysis. All samples were tested once or multiple times with both methods according to the manufacturer's guidelines. With the gel method, 53 dogs tested DEA 1.1 positive and 42 dogs DEA 1.1 negative; blood typing was not possible due to erythrocyte autoagglutination in 1 dog. With the cartridge test, 53 samples tested DEA 1.1 positive, 34 samples tested DEA 1.1 negative, and 6 results were inconclusive (3 samples were not included due to autoagglutination or severe hemolysis). Without taking the inconclusive samples into account, the agreement between both methods was 96.5%. The sensitivity and specificity for samples that were definitively typed by both methods were 100% and 91.9%, respectively. The cartridge test was suitable for in-clinic canine DEA 1.1 blood typing, although some discrepancies compared to the gel method existed. The cartridge test is software-directed, is easy to use, and does not require user interpretation, but preanalytical guidelines (sample evaluation for agglutination and hemolysis) have to be followed. For inconclusive results, an alternate blood-typing method should be performed.