AABB 2019 | American Association for Blood Banks
Visit Bio‑Rad at AABB

Visit Bio‑Rad at AABB

When the Right
Type Matters


Booth #1222  |  San Antonio, Texas  |  October 19–22, 2019

Industry Workshop

The workshop registration is now closed due to reaching the maximum capacity allowed for attendees. We will be filming this workshop and will make the video available after the AABB. If you would like to receive a video link for this workshop, please fill out the registration form. We apologize, P.A.C.E. credit cannot be given for the video portion of this workshop.

October 21


7:00 AM

CAP Frequently Asked Questions and Checklist Challenges: Transfusion Medicine

Monday, October 21, 2019, 7:00–8:15 AM
Location: Grand Hyatt Convention Center, Second Floor, Lonestar Ballroom D, 600 E. Market Street
Breakfast reception: 6:30–7:00 AM
CEU information: Participants will receive 1 CEU unit


Presenter, PhD

Denise Driscoll, MS, MT(ASCP)SBB

Senior Director, Laboratory Accreditation and Regulatory Affairs

College of American Pathologists

1 CE credit will be provided to the attendees

At the end of this session, the audience will be able to understand:

  • Commonly misunderstood CAP Transfusion Medicine (TRM) Checklist requirements

  • Reasons a requirement may be misunderstood

  • How to demonstrate compliance and access CAP resources if needed

Register to receive the video link   

Poster Presentations

Poster Luncheon

Sunday, October 20, 2019, 1:00–2:00 PM
Location: Exhibit Hall 2‑3 – Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center

Poster # TS‑79

Automating Antibody Identification Panel Testing of Eluates in the Transfusion Medicine Laboratory Using Bio‑Rad’s TANGO infinity

Authors: Diana G Morgan, MLS (ASCP)cmSBBcm1, Albert Langeberg, MT1,2 and Melissa J.A. Laufer, BS, BB, SBB (ASCP)3, (1)Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, (2)Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Colmar Manor, DC, (3)Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Hercules, CA

Background/Case Studies: Medstar Georgetown University Hospital performs nearly 450 direct antiglobulin tests (DAT) annually, which results in nearly 50 eluates. When the DAT is positive, an elution is performed. In cases of HTRs or HDFN, specific antibody(ies) detected in the eluate may not be detectable in the plasma. Antibodies adsorbed onto RBCs can be disassociated and recovered through elution. Performing elution testing in a blood bank is laborious, time consuming and completely manual. Having the ability to automate eluate testing would streamline this process. Medstar Georgetown University Hospital validated automating the antibody testing process performed on eluates using Bio‑Rad’s TANGO infinity blood bank analyzer and correlated this with manual tube testing.

Study Design/Methods: Testing was performed in a series of US and European clinical laboratories following the manufacturer’s instrument instruction. The product is available in individual 4 mL vials of H, I, L, or non-interfered.Labs pipetted each product into three sample cup and performed single replicate.

Results/Findings: Of the 47 samples tested, 10 specificities were found, two of which did not correlate. There were 14 pan‑agglutinins and 12 negative panels. Overall, the correlation data results were >95%. See the data table.

Conclusions: Medstar Georgetown University found an effective way to streamline performing antibody identification panels on eluates. Utilizing Bio‑Rad’s automated blood bank analyzer, TANGO infinity, the facility has been able to validate with >95% concordance the process of automating eluate testing. This process can alleviate productivity challenges in the blood bank by enabling technologists to perform other necessary tasks.

Poster # IS‑9

Assessment of Bio‑Rad’s IH‑500 Fully Automated Blood Bank Analyzer for Blood Grouping & Rh Phenotyping

Authors: Melissa J.A. Laufer, BS, BB, SBB (ASCP), Bio‑Rad Laboratories, Inc., Hercules, CA, Carmen Meyer, MS (Biology), Diamed Gmbh/Bio‑Rad Laboratories, Inc., Cressier, Switzerland and Silke MilbradtPohan, PhD, Bio‑Rad Laboratories GmbH, Dreieich, Germany

Background/Case Studies: The Bio‑Rad IH‑500 automated blood bank analyzer with its complementary IH‑Com Data Management System (DMS) is a fully automated, random access blood bank analyzer. The Bio‑Rad IH‑System consists of 21 FDA licensed Column Agglutination Technology (CAT) gel cards for use in immunohematology serological testing. Clinical studies were performed at three U.S. facilities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Bio‑Rad IH‑500 analyzer with IH‑Com DMS for blood grouping including ABO/Rh, weak D, Rh and K phenotyping. The results were compared with results generated by the IH‑1000, an FDA licensed blood bank analyzer, using the same IH‑Cards and reagents.

Study Design/Methods: Patient and donor samples were obtained from the three U.S. Blood Centers & Transfusion Medicine facilities. The study included the evaluation of IH‑Cards and results tested on the IH‑500 in comparison to the FDA‑licensed IH‑1000. A total of 1439 samples were tested. The assays evaluated were: ABO/Rh forward & reverse blood grouping, ABO/Rh forward only donor confirmation, Anti‑A,B Testing, RhD typing with direct agglutinating Anti‑D (including detection of partial DVI phenotypes), weak D, and Rh & K phenotyping). The percent agreement between the IH‑500 and the IH‑1000 was calculated for each reagent along with the Lower Confidence Limit. When quantity allowed, samples discrepant between the two analyzers were sent to a referee lab for testing with different licensed serological and/or molecular methods.

Results/Findings: The data table below summarizes the results, which demonstrated 100% full concordance for all IH‑Card testing. One sample reacted positive (dual population) with A1 RRBCs on IH‑500 resulting in an ABO discrepancy. In repeat testing to resolve, the A1 cell resulted negative and concordant with the reference method. There was insufficient volume for resolution testing at the referee lab. Nine samples reacted positive with B RRBCs on the IH‑500. Eight samples resulted as blood group A and confirmed true positive on the IH‑500.

Conclusion: Out of the 1439 samples tested, 552 resulted negative by both the IH‑500 and the IH‑1000. One sample resulted negative with the IH‑500 only. All 886 had positive agreement with both the IH‑1000 and the IH‑500. The positive percent agreement (PPA) is 886/886 or 100%, while the negative percent agreement (NPA) is 552/553 or 99.82%. The evaluation of Bio‑Rad’s IH‑500 automated blood bank analyzer demonstrated full concordance to the FDA licensed IH‑1000.

Product Showcase

Blood Bank Testing and Quality Management