4.0 Article

Validation of the Serological Testing for Anti-HIV-1/2, Anti-HCV, HBsAg, and Anti-HBc from Post-mortem Blood on the Siemens-BEP-III Automatic System

Journal

TRANSFUSION MEDICINE AND HEMOTHERAPY
Volume 38, Issue 6, Pages 365-372

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000334481

Keywords

Infectious disease serology; Post-mortem blood; Tissue donation; BEP-III; Validation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Some properties of blood are modified post mortem. These modifications might give false-negative or false-positive results in infectious disease testing. Most CE-marked test equipment for infectious serology testing is not validated for testing post-mortal blood. Validation, however, is obligatory, if the results are used for the release of tissues for transplantation. Methods: Samples of pre-and post-mortem sera were obtained from 20 cornea donors, and the results were compared for anti-HIV-1/2, anti-HCV, HBsAg, and anti-HBc on the Siemens-BEP-III Automatic System. Negative post-mortem sera were spiked with standard sera (PEI anti-HCV IgG, PEI HBsAg ad 1000 standard, anti-HBc IgG (WHO) NIBSC 95/522, PEI anti-HIVIV) in concentrations which give low-and high-positive results for the respective marker. Results: All pre-mortem sera were negative for all markers. None of the post-mortem samples was false-positive. None of the spiked postmortem samples was false-negative. Technical errors occurred during the validation process but could be detected and eliminated. Serum samples should be centrifuged immediately after collection, and it must be taken into account that post-mortem serum could rarely lead to blockage of pipetting systems due to clotting phenomena. Conclusion: There is no indication that post-mortem samples give false-negative or false-positve results with the test system and test kits used. The procedure described might serve as a model for validating other test kits on post-mortem samples.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available