Cargando…

Agreement of stall‐side and laboratory major crossmatch tests with the reference standard method in horses

BACKGROUND: Crossmatching is used to prevent life‐threatening transfusion reactions in horses. Laboratory methods are laborious and technically challenging, which is impractical during emergencies. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: Evaluate agreement between a stall‐side crossmatch kit (KIT) and a laboratory m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fenn, Melissa S., Bortsie‐Aryee, Araba D., Perkins, Gillian A., Mann, Sabine, Tomlinson, Joy E., Wood, Emma M., Mix, Susan E., Stokol, Tracy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096648/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32017276
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15710
_version_ 1783510873098158080
author Fenn, Melissa S.
Bortsie‐Aryee, Araba D.
Perkins, Gillian A.
Mann, Sabine
Tomlinson, Joy E.
Wood, Emma M.
Mix, Susan E.
Stokol, Tracy
author_facet Fenn, Melissa S.
Bortsie‐Aryee, Araba D.
Perkins, Gillian A.
Mann, Sabine
Tomlinson, Joy E.
Wood, Emma M.
Mix, Susan E.
Stokol, Tracy
author_sort Fenn, Melissa S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Crossmatching is used to prevent life‐threatening transfusion reactions in horses. Laboratory methods are laborious and technically challenging, which is impractical during emergencies. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: Evaluate agreement between a stall‐side crossmatch kit (KIT) and a laboratory method (LAB) in horses with known and unknown blood types. ANIMALS: Twenty‐four blood‐typed and alloantibody‐screened healthy adult horses (Aim 1) and 156 adult horses of unknown blood type (Aim 2). METHODS: Prospective, blinded study. Expected positive (n = 35) and negative (n = 36) crossmatches among 24 antibody and blood‐typed horses were used to determine sensitivity and specificity of KIT and LAB against the reference method. Agreement in 156 untyped horses was evaluated by reciprocal crossmatch (n = 156). RESULTS: Sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]) for LAB and KIT compared with expected reactions was 77.1% (59.9%‐90.0%) and 91.4% (77.0%‐98.2%), and specificity 77.8% (60.9%‐89.9%) and 73.5% (55.6%‐87.1%), respectively. The KIT was 100% sensitive for Aa reactions; LAB was 100% sensitive for Qab; and both were 100% sensitive for Ca. Cohen's κ agreement for LAB and KIT with expected positive and negative reactions (n = 71) was moderate (0.55 [0.36‐0.74]) and substantial (0.65 [0.47‐0.82]), respectively. Agreement was fair comparing LAB with KIT in Aim 1 (0.30 [0.08‐0.52]) and in untyped horses in Aim 2 (0.26 [0.11‐0.41]). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Agreement between KIT and LAB with expected reactions was blood type dependent. Performance of both methods depends on blood type prevalence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7096648
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70966482020-03-26 Agreement of stall‐side and laboratory major crossmatch tests with the reference standard method in horses Fenn, Melissa S. Bortsie‐Aryee, Araba D. Perkins, Gillian A. Mann, Sabine Tomlinson, Joy E. Wood, Emma M. Mix, Susan E. Stokol, Tracy J Vet Intern Med EQUID BACKGROUND: Crossmatching is used to prevent life‐threatening transfusion reactions in horses. Laboratory methods are laborious and technically challenging, which is impractical during emergencies. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: Evaluate agreement between a stall‐side crossmatch kit (KIT) and a laboratory method (LAB) in horses with known and unknown blood types. ANIMALS: Twenty‐four blood‐typed and alloantibody‐screened healthy adult horses (Aim 1) and 156 adult horses of unknown blood type (Aim 2). METHODS: Prospective, blinded study. Expected positive (n = 35) and negative (n = 36) crossmatches among 24 antibody and blood‐typed horses were used to determine sensitivity and specificity of KIT and LAB against the reference method. Agreement in 156 untyped horses was evaluated by reciprocal crossmatch (n = 156). RESULTS: Sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]) for LAB and KIT compared with expected reactions was 77.1% (59.9%‐90.0%) and 91.4% (77.0%‐98.2%), and specificity 77.8% (60.9%‐89.9%) and 73.5% (55.6%‐87.1%), respectively. The KIT was 100% sensitive for Aa reactions; LAB was 100% sensitive for Qab; and both were 100% sensitive for Ca. Cohen's κ agreement for LAB and KIT with expected positive and negative reactions (n = 71) was moderate (0.55 [0.36‐0.74]) and substantial (0.65 [0.47‐0.82]), respectively. Agreement was fair comparing LAB with KIT in Aim 1 (0.30 [0.08‐0.52]) and in untyped horses in Aim 2 (0.26 [0.11‐0.41]). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Agreement between KIT and LAB with expected reactions was blood type dependent. Performance of both methods depends on blood type prevalence. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020-02-04 2020-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7096648/ /pubmed/32017276 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15710 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle EQUID
Fenn, Melissa S.
Bortsie‐Aryee, Araba D.
Perkins, Gillian A.
Mann, Sabine
Tomlinson, Joy E.
Wood, Emma M.
Mix, Susan E.
Stokol, Tracy
Agreement of stall‐side and laboratory major crossmatch tests with the reference standard method in horses
title Agreement of stall‐side and laboratory major crossmatch tests with the reference standard method in horses
title_full Agreement of stall‐side and laboratory major crossmatch tests with the reference standard method in horses
title_fullStr Agreement of stall‐side and laboratory major crossmatch tests with the reference standard method in horses
title_full_unstemmed Agreement of stall‐side and laboratory major crossmatch tests with the reference standard method in horses
title_short Agreement of stall‐side and laboratory major crossmatch tests with the reference standard method in horses
title_sort agreement of stall‐side and laboratory major crossmatch tests with the reference standard method in horses
topic EQUID
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096648/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32017276
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15710
work_keys_str_mv AT fennmelissas agreementofstallsideandlaboratorymajorcrossmatchtestswiththereferencestandardmethodinhorses
AT bortsiearyeearabad agreementofstallsideandlaboratorymajorcrossmatchtestswiththereferencestandardmethodinhorses
AT perkinsgilliana agreementofstallsideandlaboratorymajorcrossmatchtestswiththereferencestandardmethodinhorses
AT mannsabine agreementofstallsideandlaboratorymajorcrossmatchtestswiththereferencestandardmethodinhorses
AT tomlinsonjoye agreementofstallsideandlaboratorymajorcrossmatchtestswiththereferencestandardmethodinhorses
AT woodemmam agreementofstallsideandlaboratorymajorcrossmatchtestswiththereferencestandardmethodinhorses
AT mixsusane agreementofstallsideandlaboratorymajorcrossmatchtestswiththereferencestandardmethodinhorses
AT stokoltracy agreementofstallsideandlaboratorymajorcrossmatchtestswiththereferencestandardmethodinhorses