Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Lab Physicians 2018; 10(01): 080-084
DOI: 10.4103/JLP.JLP_71_17
Original Article

Evaluation of new indigenous “point‑of‑care” ABO and Rh grouping device

Aseem Kumar Tiwari
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Medanta - The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
,
Divya Setya
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Medanta - The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
,
Geet Aggarwal
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Medanta - The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
,
Dinesh Arora
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Medanta - The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
,
Ravi C. Dara
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Manipal Hospitals, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
,
Ankita Ratan
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Medanta - The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
,
Gunjan Bhardwaj
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Medanta - The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
,
Devi Prasad Acharya
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Medanta - The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship: Nil
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Erycard 2.0 is a “point-of-care” device that is primarily being used for patient blood grouping before transfusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Erycard 2.0 was compared with conventional slide technology for accuracy and time taken for ABO and Rh forward grouping result with column agglutination technology (CAT) being the gold standard. Erycard 2.0 as a device was also evaluated for its stability under different storage conditions and stability of result till 48 h. In addition, grouping of hemolyzed samples was also tested with Erycard 2.0. Ease of use of Erycard 2.0 was evaluated with a survey among paramedical staff.

RESULTS: Erycard 2.0 demonstrated 100% concordance with CAT as compared with slide technique (98.9%). Mean time taken per test by Erycard 2.0 and slide technique was 5.13 min and 1.7 min, respectively. After pretesting storage under different temperature and humidity conditions, Erycard 2.0 did not show any deviation from the result. The result did not change even after 48 h of testing and storage under room temperature. 100% concordance was recorded between pre- and post-hemolyzed blood grouping. Ease of use survey revealed that Erycard 2.0 was more acceptable to paramedical staff for its simplicity, objectivity, and performance than conventional slide technique.

CONCLUSION: Erycard 2.0 can be used as “point-of-care” device for blood donor screening for ABO and Rh blood group and can possibly replace conventional slide technique.

Key words

ABO grouping - Column Agglutination Technology - donor screening - ease of use - Erycard - lateral flow - point of care - stability


Publication History

Received: 12 April 2017

Accepted: 21 July 2017

Article published online:
19 February 2020

© 2018.

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Prasad JP. Guidance Manual on “ABO and Rh Blood Grouping”. Document ID No. NIB/BRL/GM/02. National Institute of Biologicals (Ministry of Health & Family Welfare) Government of India; 2013. p. 10-2.
  • 2 Mujahid A, Dickert FL. Blood group typing: From classical strategies to the application of synthetic antibodies generated by molecular imprinting. Sensors 2015;16:51.
  • 3 Malomgré W, Neumeister B. Recent and future trends in blood group typing. Anal Bioanal Chem 2009;393:1443-51.
  • 4 El Kenz H, Corazza F. Automated point-of-care testing for ABO agglutination test: Proof of concept and validation. Vox Sang 2015;109:79-85.
  • 5 Dhruva G, Agravat A, Bhankhodia V. Comparison of conventional Tube agglutination method versus Erycard 2.0 for the ABO blood grouping system – A pilot study. Int J Res Med 2015;4;59-61.
  • 6 Herold TJ, Whittaker DS, Glynn T. Determining the accuracy of a rapid point-of-care test for determining Rh(D) phenotype. Acad Emerg Med 2005;12:474-6.
  • 7 Bienek DR, Chang CK, Charlton DG. Stability of user-friendly blood typing kits stored under typical military field conditions. Mil Med 2009;174:1075-80.