Advertisement

Implementation of HEA BeadChip System at Medical Centers: Providing Extended Matched Units and Eliminating Complex Workups for Patients

Conference paper

Abstract

Medical centers have long appreciated the need for a reliable system to provide compatible blood for patients. The immediate need to provide antigen-negative blood usually entails getting units from blood providers which delays transfusion and increases cost. Most hospital transfusion services do not have full reference lab capabilities to resolve complex cases and are forced to send out patient samples. The focus of the institutions highlighted in this chapter is to meet the needs of their special patient populations, while some are also providing services to other area hospitals. All institutions were motivated to implement BeadChip™ technology to expand and manage the inventories of antigen-negative units, thereby reducing their dependence on blood centers for Ag (antigen) negative and rare donor units. The patient samples analyzed are complex workups of patients with multiple antibodies, multiple previous transfusions, or patients with a positive direct antiglobulin test. These are usually submitted to the reference laboratories within the hospital or from other area hospitals. Applying the BeadChip™ technology in the hospital can reduce turnaround time for providing phenotype-matched units for alloimmunized patients. The impact of implementing BeadChip™ technology on patient care and on laboratory operations is discussed.

Keywords

Alloimmunization Autoantibodies Blood group antigens Blood groups DNA testing DNA array 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Carolyn Whitsett, MD, for her critical review of the ­manuscript. We also recognize BeadChip users for their contributions, and Ermelina Enriquez, BS, at BioArray’s mih laboratory, and members of the technical marketing team, Ruth Huang, BS, Kevin Trainer, BS, and Tasmia Shariff, BS, for data compilation.

References

  1. 1.
    Petz LD (2003) “Least incompatible” units for transfusion in autoimmune hemolytic anemia: should we eliminate this meaningless term? A commentary for clinicians and transfusion medicine professionals [editorial]. Transfusion 43:1503–1507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rios M, Hue-Roye K, Storry JR et al. (2000) Cell typing the sensitized transfusion-dependent patient. Ann Clin Lab Sci 4:379–386Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee E, Burgess G, Halverson GR et al. (2004) Applications of murine and humanized chimaeric monoclonal antibodies for red cell phenotyping. Br J Haematol 126:277–281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shirey RS, Boyd JS, Parwani AV et al. (2002) Prophylactic antigen-matched donor blood for patients with warm autoantibodies: an algorithm for transfusion management. Transfusion 42:1435–1441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vichinsky EP, Luban NL, Wright E et al. (2002) Prospective RBC phenotype matching in a stroke-prevention trial in sickle cell anemia: a multicenter transfusion trial. Transfusion 41:1086–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castro O, Sandler SG, Houston-Yu P, Rana S (2002) Predicting the effect of transfusing only phenotype-matched RBCs to patients with sickle cell disease: theoretical and practical implications. Transfusion 42:684–690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Porter J (2009) Blood transfusion: quality and safety issues in thalassemia, basic requirements and new trends. Hemoglobin 33(Suppl 1):S28–S36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denomme GA, Wagner FF, Fernandes BJ et al. (2005) Partial D, weak D types, and novel RHD alleles among 33,864 multiethnic patients: implications for anti-D alloimmunization and prevention. Transfusion 45:1554–1560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tournamille C, Meunier-Costes N, Costes B et al. (2010) Partial C antigen in sickle cell disease patients: clinical relevance and prevention of alloimmunization. Transfusion 50:13–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Osby M, Shulman IA (2005) Phenotype matching of donor red blood cell units for nonalloimmunized sickle cell disease patients: a survey of 1182 North American laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 129:190–193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abumuhor IA, Klapper EB, Smith LE (2009) The value of maintaining special screened RBC inventory by molecular testing in a tertiary care hospital. Transfusion 49(Suppl):242A (A22-030H)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hashmi G (2007) Red blood cell antigen phenotype by DNA analysis. Transfusion 47(1 Suppl):60S–63SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Castilho L, Credidio DC, Ribeiro K et al. (2009) Anti-Fy3 in sickle cell disease patients genotyped as FY*B-33/FY*B-33. Transfusion 49(Suppl):35A (S83-030K)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klapper E, Zhang Y, Figueroa P, et al. (2010) Toward extended phenotype matching: a new operational paradigm for the transfusion service, Transfusion 50(3):536–546Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosse WF, Gallagher D, Kinney TR et al. (1990) Transfusion and alloimmunization in sickle cell disease. The Cooperative Study of Sickle Cell Disease. Blood 76:1431–1437PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.For the BeadChip User Group at Medical Centers and Cedars Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations