Search

BACKGROUND: Erycard 2.0 is a "point-of-care" device that is primarily being used for patient blood grouping before transfusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Erycard 2.0 was compared with conventional slide technology for accuracy and time taken for ABO and Rh forward grouping result with column agglutination technology (CAT) being the gold standard. Erycard 2.0 as a device was also evaluated for its stability under different storage conditions and stability of result till 48 h. In addition, grouping of hemolyzed samples was also tested with Erycard 2.0. Ease of use of Erycard 2.0 was evaluated with a survey among paramedical staff. RESULTS: Erycard 2.0 demonstrated 100% concordance with CAT as compared with slide technique (98.9%). Mean time taken per test by Erycard 2.0 and slide technique was 5.13 min and 1.7 min, respectively. After pretesting storage under different temperature and humidity conditions, Erycard 2.0 did not show any deviation from the result. The result did not change even after 48 h of testing and storage under room temperature. 100% concordance was recorded between pre- and post-hemolyzed blood grouping. Ease of use survey revealed that Erycard 2.0 was more acceptable to paramedical staff for its simplicity, objectivity, and performance than conventional slide technique. CONCLUSION: Erycard 2.0 can be used as "point-of-care" device for blood donor screening for ABO and Rh blood group and can possibly replace conventional slide technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Blood donor experiences both immediate adverse reactions (IAR) and delayed adverse reactions (DAR). With limited published data available on the incidence of DAR, a study was conducted to estimate incidence and profile of DAR through telephonic interview. Materials and methods Study was conducted over a 45-day period for consecutive volunteer whole blood donations at tertiary care hospital. Donors were divided into first-time, repeat and regular and were monitored for IAR. They were given written copy of post-donation advice. Donors were contacted telephonically three weeks post-donation and enquired about general wellbeing and specific DAR in accordance with a standard n international (International Society of Blood Transfusion) standard format. Results Donors participated in the study of which 1.6% donors experienced an IAR. Much larger number reported DAR (10.3% vs.1.6% p < 0.0001). Further, DAR was presented as a variegated profile with bruise, painful arms and fatigue being the commonest. DARs were more common in females than males (25% vs. 10.3%, p < 0.02). Localized DAR like bruise and painful arms were more common in younger donors (age <50 years) whereas systemic DAR like fatigue was common in older donors (>50 years). First time (12.3%) and repeat donors (13.5%) had similar frequency of DAR but were lower among regular donors (6.7%). Conclusion DARs are more common than IAR and are of different profile. Post-donation interview has provided an insight into donor experiences and can be used as a valuable tool in donor hemovigilance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]