Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan;35(1):245-251.
doi: 10.1111/jvim.15983. Epub 2020 Dec 18.

Accuracy of point-of-care crossmatching methods and crossmatch incompatibility in critically ill dogs

Hayden Marshall  1 , Shauna L Blois  1 , Anthony C G Abrams-Ogg  1 , Alexa M Bersenas  1 , Kristiina Ruotsalo  2 , Gabrielle Monteith  1
Affiliations

Accuracy of point-of-care crossmatching methods and crossmatch incompatibility in critically ill dogs

Hayden Marshall et al. J Vet Intern Med. 2021 Jan.

Abstract

Background: The performance of commercial point-of-care crossmatch (CM) tests compared to laboratory tube agglutination CM is unknown. Additionally, there is limited information regarding CM incompatibility in ill dogs.

Objectives: To determine if point-of-care major CM methods are accurate in detecting compatible and incompatible tests when compared to laboratory CM methods, and to identify factors associated with CM incompatibility in dogs.

Animals: Part 1 (prospective) included 63 client-owned dogs potentially requiring blood transfusion. Part 2 (retrospective) included all dogs from part 1, plus medical records of 141 dogs with major CM results.

Methods: For part 1, major CM was performed using a tube agglutination assay (LAB-CM), a gel-based point-of-care test (GEL-CM), and an immunochromatographic point-of-care test (IC-CM). For part 2, medical record data were collected to determine rates of and risk factors for CM incompatibility.

Results: Kappa agreement between the LAB-CM and GEL-CM methods could not be calculated due to a relative lack of incompatible results. Kappa agreement between the LAB-CM and IC-CM methods was 0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0-0.31, P = .007) indicating no agreement. The LAB-CM incompatibility in transfusion-naïve vs dogs that had a transfusion was 25% and 35%, (P = .3).

Conclusions and clinical importance: Compared to laboratory methods, point-of-care methods evaluated in our study lacked sensitivity for detecting incompatibilities. Dogs had similar rates of major CM incompatibility regardless of transfusion history. This suggests CM testing prior to transfusion be considered in all dogs however our study did not investigate clinical relevancy of incompatible LAB-CM.

Keywords: anemia; blood compatibility; canine; hemolysis; transfusion medicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Alvedia supplied the immunochromatographic crossmatch kits free of charge; DMS supplied the RapidVet gel crossmatch kits at a reduced rate for the investigators.

References

    1. Holowaychuk MK, Leader JL, Monteith G. Risk factors for transfusion‐associated complications and nonsurvival in dogs receiving packed red blood cell transfusions: 211 cases (2008–2011). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2014;244:431‐437. - PubMed
    1. Callan MB, Oakley DA, Shofer FS, Giger U. Canine red blood cell transfusion practice. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 1996;32:303‐311. - PubMed
    1. Maglaras CH, Koenig A, Bedard DL, et al. Retrospective evaluation of the effect of red blood cell product age on occurrence of acute transfusion‐related complications in dogs: 210 cases (2010–2012). J Vet Emerg Crit Care. 2016;27:108‐120. - PubMed
    1. Bruce JA, Kriese‐Anderson L, Bruce AM, Pittman JR. Effect of premedication and other factors on the occurrence of acute transfusion reactions in dogs. J Vet Emerg Crit Care. 2015;25:620‐630. - PubMed
    1. Kerl ME, Hohenhaus AE. Packed red blood cell transfusions in dogs: 131 cases (1989). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1993;202(9):1495‐1499. - PubMed