Abstract
Objective—To compare accuracy and ease of use of a card agglutination assay, an immunochromatographic cartridge method, and a gel-based method for canine blood typing.
Sample—Blood samples from 52 healthy blood donor dogs, 10 dogs with immune-mediated hemolytic anemia (IMHA), and 29 dogs with other diseases.
Procedures—Blood samples were tested in accordance with manufacturer guidelines. Samples with low PCVs were created by the addition of autologous plasma to separately assess the effects of anemia on test results.
Results—Compared with a composite reference standard of agreement between 2 methods, the gel-based method was found to be 100% accurate. The card agglutination assay was 89% to 91% accurate, depending on test interpretation, and the immunochromatographic cartridge method was 93% accurate but 100% specific. Errors were observed more frequently in samples from diseased dogs, particularly those with IMHA. In the presence of persistent autoagglutination, dog erythrocyte antigen (DEA) 1.1 typing was not possible, except with the immunochromatographic cartridge method.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The card agglutination assay and immunochromatographic cartridge method, performed by trained personnel, were suitable for in-clinic emergency DEA 1.1 blood typing. There may be errors, particularly for samples from dogs with IMHA, and the immunochromatographic cartridge method may have an advantage of allowing typing of samples with persistent autoagglutination. The laboratory gel-based method would be preferred for routine DEA 1.1 typing of donors and patients if it is available and time permits. Current DEA 1.1 typing techniques appear to be appropriately standardized and easy to use.
