Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Three patients highlighting potential pitfalls in platelet refractory testing.
Attieh, Michel; Dent, Edward A; Happney, Logan; Roback, John D; Alter, David N; Barrette, Eileen; Then, Caroline; Sullivan, H Cliff.
Afiliación
  • Attieh M; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
  • Dent EA; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
  • Happney L; American Red Cross, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
  • Roback JD; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
  • Alter DN; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
  • Barrette E; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
  • Then C; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
  • Sullivan HC; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Transfusion ; 63(4): 888-892, 2023 04.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36794568
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Platelet-transfusion refractory (PR) patients do not achieve expected post-transfusion platelet counts. We investigate suspected PR patients with post-transfusion platelet counts, indirect platelet antibody screens (ind-PAS), Class I HLA antibody tests (HLA-Scr), and physical platelet crossmatch (PXM) studies. STUDY DESIGN AND

METHODS:

The three following cases describe possible pitfalls of laboratory tests used in PR workup and management.

RESULTS:

Case #1 Antibody testing detected antibodies to only HLA-B13, corresponding to a 4% calculated panel reactive antibodies (CPRA; 96% predicted donor compatibility). However, PXM showed the patient compatible with 11/14 (79%) donors; two of the PXM-incompatible units were ABO-incompatible. Case #2 PXM revealed compatibility with 1/14 screened donors; however, the patient did not respond to the product from the compatible donor. The patient did respond to HLA-matched product. Dilution studies provided evidence of the prozone effect, which caused negative PXM despite clinically relevant antibodies. Case #3 There was a discrepancy between the ind-PAS and HLA-Scr. Ind-PAS was negative for HLA antibodies, while HLA-Scr was positive and specificity testing corresponded to 38% CPRA. Per the package insert, the sensitivity of ind-PAS is ~85% compared to HLA-Scr.

DISCUSSION:

These cases highlight the importance of investigating incongruent results. Cases #1 and #2 demonstrate PXM pitfalls ABO incompatibility can result in positive PXM and false-negative PXM can occur in the setting of the prozone effect. Case #3 reveals the importance of knowing a test's sensitivity. Centers that only perform ind-PAS may fail to detect HLA antibodies.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Plaquetas / Tipificación y Pruebas Cruzadas Sanguíneas / Transfusión de Plaquetas Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Transfusion Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Plaquetas / Tipificación y Pruebas Cruzadas Sanguíneas / Transfusión de Plaquetas Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Transfusion Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos