Agreement of stall‐side and laboratory major crossmatch tests with the reference standard method in horses. (4th February 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fenn, Melissa S.; Bortsie‐Aryee, Araba D.; Perkins, Gillian A.; Mann, Sabine; Tomlinson, Joy E.; Wood, Emma M.; Mix, Susan E.; Stokol, Tracy
• Is Part Of: Journal of veterinary internal medicine. Volume 34:Number 2(2020)
• Page Start: 941
• Page End: 948
• Publication Date: 2020-02-04
• Subjects: alloantibody -- agglutination -- blood incompatibility -- blood type -- point‐of‐care test -- transfusion reaction; Veterinary medicine -- Periodicals; 636.0896
• DOI: 10.1111/jvim.15710
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0891-6640

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Crossmatching is used to prevent life‐threatening transfusion reactions in horses. Laboratory methods are laborious and technically challenging, which is impractical during emergencies. Hypothesis/Objectives: Evaluate agreement between a stall‐side crossmatch kit (KIT) and a laboratory method (LAB) in horses with known and unknown blood types. Animals: Twenty‐four blood‐typed and alloantibody‐screened healthy adult horses (Aim 1) and 156 adult horses of unknown blood type (Aim 2). Methods: Prospective, blinded study. Expected positive (n = 35) and negative (n = 36) crossmatches among 24 antibody and blood‐typed horses were used to determine sensitivity and specificity of KIT and LAB against the reference method. Agreement in 156 untyped horses was evaluated by reciprocal crossmatch (n = 156). Results: Sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]) for LAB and KIT compared with expected reactions was 77.1% (59.9%‐90.0%) and 91.4% (77.0%‐98.2%), and specificity 77.8% (60.9%‐89.9%) and 73.5% (55.6%‐87.1%), respectively. The KIT was 100% sensitive for Aa reactions; LAB was 100% sensitive for Qab; and both were 100% sensitive for Ca. Cohen's κ agreement for LAB and KIT with expected positive and negative reactions (n = 71) was moderate (0.55 [0.36‐0.74]) and substantial (0.65 [0.47‐0.82]), respectively. Agreement was fair comparing LAB with KIT in Aim 1 (0.30 [0.08‐0.52]) and in untyped horses in Aim 2 (0.26 [0.11‐0.41]). Conclusions and Clinical Importance: Agreement between KIT and LAB with expected reactions was blood type dependent. Performance of both methods depends on blood type prevalence.