The Bio-Rad IH‑500, processing IH gel cards, was evaluated in comparison to the Immucor Echo Lumena using solid phase methodology at Blood Works Northwest, Seattle. The objectives were to assess concordance of serologic results as well as usability and adaptability for routine testing (ABO/Rh, Antibody screening and identification, AHG Crossmatch, DAT, Donor retype). Discrepant results were resolved by standard techniques in their IRL.
Overall, both systems showed 98.0% agreement. Differences observed with ABO/RhD testing were the detection of mixed filed reactions due to recent transfusion and weak D type 1 samples by direct agglutination on the IH‑500 that were not detected on the Echo Lumena. Of note, weak D typing by IAT was not used for the study on none of the system. IH‑500 was able to detect another weak D type 1 within the donor retype which was not seen on the Echo. Inversely, the Echo Lumena detected some weak ABO reverse groups that did not yield a reaction on the IH‑500.
Both systems showed a very few numbers of false positive and false negative antibody screens. Within the negative screens on the IH‑500, the IRL identified an anti‑Jka and a combination of anti‑E and anti‑Cw (anti‑Cw neither detected by the Echo). Within the negative screens on the Echo, the resolution method identified an anti‑D, an anti‑Leb, and a cold autoantibody.
Within the antibody panels, an anti‑C was missed with a detected anti‑D in 3 samples on the IH‑500 and an anti‑c was not detected by the Echo Lumena.
There was 100% concordance with AHG crossmatch and DAT.
Overall, the Echo Lumena showed a shorter Time to First Result (TTFR) whereas the IH‑500 demonstrated a shorter Time to Last Result (TTLR) and an overall better Turn-Around Time (TAT) due to the efficient use of the two centrifuges with batch testing. In some scenarios, the Echo Lumena did not have sample bays available to add samples and/or donor samples and a strip bay was not available to load consumables. The addition of STAT samples in the scenarios did not significantly impact the turnaround time on the IH‑500 as is the case with the Echo Lumena.
The operational evaluation showed the Lumena generally has a shorter time to first result while the IH‑500 produced a shorter time to final results in batch testing due to efficient sample processing, sample capacity, and testing flexibility.
The above summary was prepared by Arnaud Reggiani, Scientific Affairs Officer, Bio-Rad Laboratories based on the study results as well as the abstract and the poster prepared by the Bloodworks Northwest team, Seattle, WA.
In case of differences or different understandings between this summary and the original abstract/poster, it is the latest which rules on the difference.
