4.2 Article

Anti-A and anti-B titers in pooled group O platelets are comparable to apheresis platelets

Journal

TRANSFUSION
Volume 48, Issue 10, Pages 2106-2113

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01814.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Although uncommon, acute hemolytic transfusion reactions (AHTRs) have been reported after transfusion of group O single-donor apheresis platelets (SDPs) to group A, B, and AB recipients. Current methods for identifying high-titer SDPs include tube and gel methods. The risk of a high-titer unit is considered low with group O, poststorage, pooled platelet concentrates (PPLTs); however, data regarding anti-A and anti-B titers in PPLTs are lacking. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Anti-A and anti-B titers were determined in 185 PPLTs by direct agglutination using manual gel and tube methods. PPLTs tested included 124 group O PPLTs, 25 group A PPLTs, 26 group B PPLTs, and 10 PPLTs containing a mix of either groups O plus A or groups O plus B (mixed PPLTs). The reciprocal of the highest dilution giving macroscopic agglutination was considered the agglutinin titer. RESULTS: Mean anti-A and anti-B titers in group O PPLTs were, respectively, 16 and 8 by tube and 64 and 32 by gel (p < 0.0001). Gel titers were one to two dilutions higher than tube and sensitive to reagent red cell lots. With the use of at least 64 as a critical titer, 60 percent of group O PPLTs tested by gel would be considered high-titer. In mixed PPLTs, the addition of one non-group O PLT significantly decreased or neutralized the corresponding anti-A or anti-B (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Anti-A and anti-B titers in group O PPLTs are comparable to those reported in group O SDPs and significantly lower than titers reported in AHTR. A critical direct agglutinin titer of 64 for identifying high-titer units by gel is too low and should be increased to 128 or higher.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available