FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / J Vet Intern Med / Comparison of Tube, Gel, and Immunochromatographic Strip Met...
Journal of veterinary internal medicine2016; 30(6); 1864-1871; doi: 10.1111/jvim.14604

Comparison of Tube, Gel, and Immunochromatographic Strip Methods for Evaluation of Blood Transfusion Compatibility in Horses.

Abstract: Assessment of blood compatibility, typically by tube agglutination (TUBE) and hemolysis crossmatch or, less commonly, by blood typing and alloantibody screening, often is performed before blood transfusion in horses. In contrast, gel column (GEL) and immunochromatographic strip (STRIP) techniques are preferred for compatibility testing in dogs and cats. Objective: To determine the accuracy of novel and standard crossmatch and typing methods. Methods: Thirty-eight healthy horses, previously blood typed and alloantibody screened. Methods: TUBE and GEL crossmatches were performed on 146 different recipient-donor pairs with 56 incompatible TUBE crossmatches. Crossmatches were compared by nonparametric area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) analyses. Horses also were blood typed by the novel immunochromatographic Ca typing STRIP. Results: Compared to TUBE crossmatch, GEL had excellent accuracy for agglutination (AUC-ROC = 0.903), but marginal accuracy for hemolysis (AUC-ROC = 0.639). Compared to macroscopic TUBE, microscopic TUBE had excellent accuracy for agglutination (AUC-ROC = 0.912). The predicted crossmatch compatibility based on blood type and alloantibody assay showed excellent accuracy compared to TUBE and GEL (AUC-ROC = 0.843 and 0.897, respectively). However, there were more recipient-donor pairs identified as incompatible by both TUBE and GEL than predicted by blood type and antibody screen, suggesting the presence of unidentified alloantibodies. A Ca typing STRIP exhibited 100% sensitivity and specificity for the 35 Ca+ and 3 Ca- horses tested. Conclusions: Gel column crossmatch and Ca typing immunochromatographic strip are simple and accurate methods to evaluate clinical blood compatibility.
Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2016-10-22 PubMed ID: 27770509PubMed Central: PMC5115201DOI: 10.1111/jvim.14604Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Comparative Study
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research explores the accuracy of various methods for evaluating blood transfusion compatibility in horses. It particularly benchmarks the commonly used tube agglutination method against gel column and immunochromatographic strip techniques, both of which are often used in dogs and cats.

Study Methodology

  • The study involved thirty-eight healthy horses that had previously been blood typed and screened for alloantibodies.
  • An assortment of 146 different recipient-donor pairs was prepared, with 56 of them proving incompatible upon tube agglutination (TUBE) crossmatches.
  • These varying pairs were evaluated using the TUBE and GEL crossmatch methods.
  • The crossmatches were assessed via nonparametric Area Under the Curve of Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUC-ROC) analyses.
  • A novel method of blood typing, the immunochromatographic Ca typing STRIP, was also utilized in the study.

Results

  • When compared to the TUBE crossmatch, the GEL method demonstrated exceptional accuracy in determining agglutination but slightly inferior in cases of hemolysis.
  • The microscopic TUBE presented exceptional accuracy for agglutination when contrasted with the macroscopic TUBE.
  • The predicted crossmatch compatibility that was derived from blood type and the alloantibody assay showed high accuracy as compared to TUBE and GEL.
  • However, it was noted that more incompatible recipient-donor pairs were revealed by both TUBE and GEL than predicted by the blood type and antibody screening. This suggests the existence of unidentified alloantibodies.
  • The Ca typing strip showed high performance, proving 100% sensitive and specific for testing both Ca+ and Ca- horses.

Conclusion

  • The Gel column crossmatch and Ca typing immunochromatographic strip methods proved to be simple and accurate for evaluating blood compatibility in horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Luethy D, Owens SD, Stefanovski D, Nolen-Walston R, Giger U. (2016). Comparison of Tube, Gel, and Immunochromatographic Strip Methods for Evaluation of Blood Transfusion Compatibility in Horses. J Vet Intern Med, 30(6), 1864-1871. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.14604

Publication

Journal of veterinary internal medicine
ISSN: 1939-1676
NlmUniqueID: 8708660
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 30
Issue: 6
Pages: 1864-1871

Researcher Affiliations

Luethy, D
  • Department of Clinical Studies-New Bolton Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA.
Owens, S D
  • Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine, Davis, CA.
Stefanovski, D
  • Department of Clinical Studies-New Bolton Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA.
Nolen-Walston, R
  • Department of Clinical Studies-New Bolton Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA.
Giger, U
  • Section of Medical Genetics, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Blood Group Antigens / analysis
  • Blood Grouping and Crossmatching / methods
  • Blood Grouping and Crossmatching / veterinary
  • Blood Transfusion
  • Female
  • Horses / blood
  • Male

References

This article includes 26 references
  1. Sandberg K. Guidelines for the Interpretation of Blood Typing Tests in Horses. Brisbane, Australia: International Society for Animal Genetics; July, 1996.
  2. Brown D, Vap LM. Principles of blood transfusion and crossmatching. Veterinary Hematology and Clinical Chemistry 2nd ed Ames, IA: Wiley‐Blackwell; 2012:205–222.
  3. Bowling A. Red blood cell antigens and blood groups in the horse. Schalm's Veterinary Hematology Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins; 2000:774–777.
  4. Owens SD, Snipes J, Magdesian KG, Christopher MM. Evaluation of a rapid agglutination method for detection of equine red cell surface antigens (Ca and Aa) as part of pretransfusion testing.. Vet Clin Pathol 2008 Mar;37(1):49-56.
    pubmed: 18366544doi: 10.1111/j.1939-165x.2008.00003.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  5. de Graaf-Roelfsema E, van der Kolk JH, Boerma S, van Haeringen H. Non-specific haemolytic alloantibody causing equine neonatal isoerythrolysis.. Vet Rec 2007 Aug 11;161(6):202-4.
    pubmed: 17693632doi: 10.1136/vr.161.6.202google scholar: lookup
  6. Zaruby JF, Hearn P, Colling D. Neonatal isoerythrolysis in a foal, involving anti-Pa alloantibody.. Equine Vet J 1992 Jan;24(1):71-3.
    pubmed: 1555548doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1992.tb02784.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  7. Tocci LJ, Ewing PJ. Increasing patient safety in veterinary transfusion medicine: an overview of pretransfusion testing.. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio) 2009 Feb;19(1):66-73.
    pubmed: 19691586doi: 10.1111/j.1476-4431.2009.00387.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  8. Seth M, Jackson KV, Giger U. Comparison of five blood-typing methods for the feline AB blood group system.. Am J Vet Res 2011 Feb;72(2):203-9.
    pmc: PMC3115202pubmed: 21281194doi: 10.2460/ajvr.72.2.203google scholar: lookup
  9. Seth M, Jackson KV, Winzelberg S, Giger U. Comparison of gel column, card, and cartridge techniques for dog erythrocyte antigen 1.1 blood typing.. Am J Vet Res 2012 Feb;73(2):213-9.
    pmc: PMC3394181pubmed: 22280380doi: 10.2460/ajvr.73.2.213google scholar: lookup
  10. Stieger K, Palos H, Giger U. Comparison of various blood-typing methods for the feline AB blood group system.. Am J Vet Res 2005 Aug;66(8):1393-9.
    pubmed: 16173483doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2005.66.1393google scholar: lookup
  11. Giger U, Stieger K, Palos H. Comparison of various canine blood-typing methods.. Am J Vet Res 2005 Aug;66(8):1386-92.
    pubmed: 16173482doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2005.66.1386google scholar: lookup
  12. Weiss DJ, Wardrop KJ. Clinical blood typing and crossmatching. Schalm's Veterinary Hematology Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins; 2000:1101–1105.
  13. Kessler RJ, Reese J, Chang D, Seth M, Hale AS, Giger U. Dog erythrocyte antigens 1.1, 1.2, 3, 4, 7, and Dal blood typing and cross-matching by gel column technique.. Vet Clin Pathol 2010 Sep;39(3):306-16.
    pmc: PMC3111972pubmed: 20727123doi: 10.1111/j.1939-165x.2010.00249.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  14. STORMONT C, SUZUKI Y, RHODE EA. UTERINE DILATION IN THE MARE.. Cornell Vet 1964 Jul;54:439-52.
    pubmed: 14193067
  15. Harris M, Nolen-Walston R, Ashton W, May M, Jackson K, Boston R. Effect of sample storage on blood crossmatching in horses.. J Vet Intern Med 2012 May-Jun;26(3):662-7.
    pubmed: 22458345doi: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2012.00913.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  16. Lee SY, Poon WY, Bentler PM. A two-stage estimation of structural equation models with continuous and polytomous variables.. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1995 Nov;48 ( Pt 2):339-58.
    pubmed: 8527346doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1995.tb01067.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  17. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Assessing the Fit of the Model. Applied Logistic Regression 3rd ed Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2013:162.
  18. Noumsi G. The role of automated gel column testing technology in enhancing transfusion safety.. MLO Med Lab Obs 2014 Jul;46(7):34, 36.
    pubmed: 25158402
  19. Tomlinson JE, Taberner E, Boston RC, Owens SD, Nolen-Walston RD. Survival Time of Cross-Match Incompatible Red Blood Cells in Adult Horses.. J Vet Intern Med 2015 Nov-Dec;29(6):1683-8.
    pmc: PMC4895677pubmed: 26478135doi: 10.1111/jvim.13627google scholar: lookup
  20. Wilkins PA. Disorders of Foals. Equine Internal Medicine 2nd ed St. Louis, Mo: W.B. Saunders; 2004:1381–1439.
  21. Bailey E, Albright DG, Henney PJ. Equine neonatal isoerythrolysis: evidence for prevention by maternal antibodies to the Ca blood group antigen.. Am J Vet Res 1988 Aug;49(8):1218-22.
    pubmed: 3178019
  22. Mudge MC, Walker NJ, Borjesson DL, Librach F, Johns JL, Owens SD. Post-transfusion survival of biotin-labeled allogeneic RBCs in adult horses.. Vet Clin Pathol 2012 Mar;41(1):56-62.
    pubmed: 22251607doi: 10.1111/j.1939-165x.2011.00384.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  23. Bailey E. Prevalence of anti-red blood cel antibodies in the serum and colostrum of mares and its relationship to neonatal isoerythrolysis.. Am J Vet Res 1982 Nov;43(11):1917-21.
    pubmed: 7181190
  24. Hurcombe SD, Mudge MC, Hinchcliff KW. Clinical and clinicopathologic variables in adult horses receiving blood transfusions: 31 cases (1999-2005).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2007 Jul 15;231(2):267-74.
    pubmed: 17630896doi: 10.2460/javma.231.2.267google scholar: lookup
  25. Waheed A, Kennedy MS, Gerhan S. Transfusion significance of Lewis system antibodies. Report on a nationwide survey.. Transfusion 1981 Sep-Oct;21(5):542-5.
    pubmed: 7292583doi: 10.1046/j.1537-2995.1981.21582040816.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  26. Issitt PD, Combs MR, Bredehoeft SJ, Campbell ML, Heimer M, Joyner L, Lorentsen L, Remley C, Bullock S, Bumgarner J. Lack of clinical significance of "enzyme-only" red cell alloantibodies.. Transfusion 1993 Apr;33(4):284-93.
    pubmed: 8480348doi: 10.1046/j.1537-2995.1993.33493242634.xgoogle scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 11 times.
  1. Kakoi H, Kikuchi M, Ishige T, Hirosawa Y, Tanaka S, Nagata SI. Monitoring the positive conversion of anti-erythrocyte antibodies in blood transfusion donor horses. J Equine Sci 2023 Jun;34(2):47-49.
    doi: 10.1294/jes.34.47pubmed: 37405070google scholar: lookup
  2. Kakoi H, Kikuchi M, Ishige T, Nagata SI, Hirosawa Y, Tanaka S, Kishinami T. Investigation of erythrocyte antigen frequencies in draft horse populations in Japan to assess blood donor suitability. J Equine Sci 2021 Mar;32(1):17-19.
    doi: 10.1294/jes.32.17pubmed: 33776536google scholar: lookup
  3. Binvel M, Arsenault J, Depré B, Blais MC. Identification of 5 novel feline erythrocyte antigens based on the presence of naturally occurring alloantibodies. J Vet Intern Med 2021 Jan;35(1):234-244.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.16010pubmed: 33336860google scholar: lookup
  4. Proverbio D, Perego R, Baggiani L, Ferrucci F, Zucca E, Nobile F, Spada E. Prevalence of Ca Blood Type and Alloantibodies in a Population of Horses from Italy. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jul 13;10(7).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10071179pubmed: 32668596google scholar: lookup
  5. Fenn MS, Bortsie-Aryee AD, Perkins GA, Mann S, Tomlinson JE, Wood EM, Mix SE, Stokol T. Agreement of stall-side and laboratory major crossmatch tests with the reference standard method in horses. J Vet Intern Med 2020 Mar;34(2):941-948.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.15710pubmed: 32017276google scholar: lookup
  6. Casenave P, Leclere M, Beauchamp G, Blais MC. Modified stall-side crossmatch for transfusions in horses. J Vet Intern Med 2019 Jul;33(4):1775-1783.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.15519pubmed: 31102487google scholar: lookup
  7. McClosky ME, Cimino Brown D, Weinstein NM, Chappini N, Taney MT, Marryott K, Callan MB. Prevalence of naturally occurring non-AB blood type incompatibilities in cats and influence of crossmatch on transfusion outcomes. J Vet Intern Med 2018 Nov;32(6):1934-1942.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.15334pubmed: 30307648google scholar: lookup
  8. Spada E, Perego R, Viñals Flórez LM, Del Rosario Perlado Chamizo M, Baggiani L, Dall'Ara P, Proverbio D. Comparison of cross-matching method for detection of DEA 7 blood incompatibility. J Vet Diagn Invest 2018 Nov;30(6):911-916.
    doi: 10.1177/1040638718806023pubmed: 30280647google scholar: lookup
  9. Lee JH, Giger U, Kim HY. Kai 1 and Kai 2: Characterization of these dog erythrocyte antigens by monoclonal antibodies. PLoS One 2017;12(6):e0179932.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179932pubmed: 28662180google scholar: lookup
  10. DiCiccio VK, Hess RS, Weinstein NM, Fromm S, Gonzalez R, Marryott K, Callan MB. Comparison of Three Feline Crossmatch Methods-Tube, Gel Column, and Immunochromatographic Strip. Vet Clin Pathol 2025 Sep;54(3):230-238.
    doi: 10.1111/vcp.70039pubmed: 40843467google scholar: lookup
  11. Bajon F, Arsenault J, Blais MC. Prevalence of a Novel Immunogenic Feline Erythrocyte Antigen (FEA 6) and Expression Patterns Between FEAs. J Vet Intern Med 2025 May-Jun;39(3):e70094.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.70094pubmed: 40214013google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.