4.2 Review

Warm-reactive (immunoglobulin G) autoantibodies and laboratory testing best practices: review of the literature and survey of current practice

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 57, 期 2, 页码 463-477

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.13903

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Warm-reactive autoantibodies (WAAs) are the most common cause of autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) and can also be present without clinically significant hemolysis. WAAs complicate immunohematological testing, yet there is no commonly accepted approach to laboratory evaluation and red blood cell (RBC) selection. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched PubMed/Cochrane Central for articles that described testing methodology and blood selection for patients with WAAs. We developed a 31-question survey regarding local practice for immunohematology testing and RBC selection in patients with WAAs (with or without AIHA). RESULTS: Eighty-six studies met the inclusion criteria and the aims of this review. Most of the literature was comprised of retrospective studies that often did not correlate laboratory results with clinical findings. Evidence-based protocols to guide testing and RBC selection for transfusion in patients withWAAs are lacking. Individuals representing 54 laboratories completed the survey. The responses indicated that numerous methodologies are used to identify underlying alloantibodies: 75% of respondents use autoadsorption; in patients who have a recent history of transfusion, 76% of respondents use alloadsorption; 58% of respondents perform direct antiglobulin testing (DAT) each time the indirect antiglobulin test is positive; and 48% perform eluate studies at the initial identification of WAAs. Responding laboratories may use phenotyping (98%) or genotyping (80%) at some point in the work-up. Seventyfive percent of respondents provide phenotype-matched or genotype-matched RBCs for transfusion. CONCLUSION: There is wide variability in immunohematology testing and RBC selection practices for patients who have WAAs (with or without AIHA). Future studies are needed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of different

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据