• 1. Rozanski E, de Laforcade AM. Transfusion medicine in veterinary emergency and critical care medicine. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract 2004; 19: 8387.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Stone E, Badner D, Cotter SM. Trends in transfusion medicine in dogs at a veterinary school clinic: 315 cases (1986–1989). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992; 200: 10001004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Hammond TN, Pesillo-Crosby SA. Prevalence of hemangiosarcoma in anemic dogs with a splenic mass and hemoperitoneum requiring a transfusion: 71 cases (2003–2005). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008; 232: 553558.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Holst LB, Haase N, Wetterslev J, et al. Transfusion requirements in septic shock (TRISS) trial—comparing the effects and safety of liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion in septic shock patients in the ICU: protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2013; 14: 150.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Callan MB, Oakley DA, Shofer FS, et al. Canine red blood cell transfusion practice. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1996; 32: 303311.

  • 6. Feldman BF, Kristensen AT. Modern veterinary blood banking practices and their applications in companion animal practice. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1995; 25: 12311243.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Tocci LJ, Ewing PJ. Increasing patient safety in veterinary transfusion medicine: an overview of pretransfusion testing. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio) 2009; 19: 6673.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Hohenhaus AE. Importance of blood groups and blood group antibodies in companion animals. Transfus Med Rev 2004; 18: 117126.

  • 9. Kessler RJ, Reese J, Chang D, et al. Dog erythrocyte antigens 1.1, 1.2, 3, 4, 7, and Dal blood typing and cross-matching by gel column technique. Vet Clin Pathol 2010; 39: 306316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Hale AS. Canine blood groups and their importance in veterinary transfusion medicine. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1995; 25: 13231332.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Blais MC, Rozanski EA, Hale AS, et al. Lack of evidence of pregnancy-induced alloantibodies in dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2009; 23: 462465.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. American Association of Blood Banks. Standards for blood banks and transfusion services. 29th ed. Bethesda, Md: American Association of Blood Banks, 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Vap LM. An update on blood typing, crossmatching, and doing no harm in transfusing dogs and cats. Available at: veterinarymedicine.dvm360.com/update-blood-typing-crossmatching-and-doing-no-harm-transfusing-dogs-and-cats?id=&pageID=1&sk=&date=. Accessed Dec 2, 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Tiwari AJ, Balekar NS, Jain DK. Blood group systems and blood transfusion of animals. Int J Pharm Clin Res 2009; 1: 5054.

  • 15. Brown D, Vap LM. Principles of blood transfusion and crossmatching. In: Thrall MA, Weiser G, Campbell TW, eds. Veterinary hematology and clinical chemistry. 2nd ed. Ames, Iowa: Wiley Blackwell, 2012; 205222.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Jagodich TA, Holowaychuk MK. Transfusion practice in dogs and cats: an internet-based survey. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio) 2016; 26: 360372.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Ottenberg R, Kaliski DJ, Friedman SS. Experimental agglutinative and hemolytic transfusions. J Med Res 1913; 28: 141163.

  • 18. Young LE, O'Brien SN, Swisher SN, et al. Blood groups in dogs—their significance to the veterinarian. Am J Vet Res 1952; 13: 207213.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Chapman JF, Elliott C, Knowles SM, et al. Guidelines for compatibility procedures in blood transfusion laboratories. Transfus Med 2004; 14: 5973.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Hann L, Brown DC, King LG, et al. Effect of duration of packed red blood cell storage on morbidity and mortality in dogs after transfusion: 3,095 cases (2001–2012). J Vet Intern Med 2014; 28: 18301837.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Bruce JA, Kriese-Anderson L, Bruce AM, et al. Effect of premedication and other factors on the occurrence of acute transfusion reactions in dogs. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio) 2015; 25: 620630.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Lester SJ, Hume JB, Phipps B. Haemobartonella canis infection following splenectomy and transfusion. Can Vet J 1995; 36: 444445.

  • 23. Fudenberg H, Allen FH Jr. Transfusion reactions in the absence of demonstrable incompatibility. N Engl J Med 1957; 256: 11801184.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Weltman JG, Fletcher DJ, Rogers C. Influence of cross-match on posttransfusion packed cell volume in feline packed red blood cell transfusion. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio) 2014; 24: 429436.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Incidence of incompatible crossmatch results in dogs admitted to a veterinary teaching hospital with no history of prior red blood cell transfusion

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.
  • | 2 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.
  • | 3 Department of Biomedical and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.
  • | 4 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.
  • | 5 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine the incidence of incompatible crossmatch results in dogs without a history of prior RBC transfusion and to evaluate changes in Hct following RBC administration for transfusion-naïve dogs that did and did not have crossmatching performed.

DESIGN Retrospective study.

ANIMALS 169 client-owned dogs.

PROCEDURES Information obtained from the medical records included signalment, pretransfusion Hct or PCV, and crossmatching results where applicable. Dogs that underwent major crossmatching (n = 149) as part of pretransfusion screening were each crossmatched with 3 potential donors. Donor blood was obtained from a commercial source and tested negative for dog erythrocyte antigens (DEAs) 1.1, 1.2, and 7 but positive for DEA 4. Mean change in Hct after transfusion was compared between crossmatch-tested dogs (57/91 that subsequently underwent RBC transfusion) and 20 other dogs that underwent RBC transfusion without prior crossmatching by statistical methods.

RESULTS 25 of 149 (17%) dogs evaluated by crossmatching were incompatible with 1 or 2 of the 3 potential donors. All 149 dogs were compatible with ≥ 1 potential donor. Mean ± SD change in Hct after transfusion was significantly higher in dogs that had crossmatching performed (12.5 ± 8.6%) than in dogs that did not undergo crossmatching (9.0 ± 4.3%).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated immunologic incompatibility can exist between first-time transfusion recipients and potential blood donor dogs. The clinical importance of these findings could not be evaluated, but considering the potential for immediate or delayed hemolytic transfusion reactions or shortened RBC life span, the authors suggest veterinarians consider crossmatching all dogs prior to transfusion when possible.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine the incidence of incompatible crossmatch results in dogs without a history of prior RBC transfusion and to evaluate changes in Hct following RBC administration for transfusion-naïve dogs that did and did not have crossmatching performed.

DESIGN Retrospective study.

ANIMALS 169 client-owned dogs.

PROCEDURES Information obtained from the medical records included signalment, pretransfusion Hct or PCV, and crossmatching results where applicable. Dogs that underwent major crossmatching (n = 149) as part of pretransfusion screening were each crossmatched with 3 potential donors. Donor blood was obtained from a commercial source and tested negative for dog erythrocyte antigens (DEAs) 1.1, 1.2, and 7 but positive for DEA 4. Mean change in Hct after transfusion was compared between crossmatch-tested dogs (57/91 that subsequently underwent RBC transfusion) and 20 other dogs that underwent RBC transfusion without prior crossmatching by statistical methods.

RESULTS 25 of 149 (17%) dogs evaluated by crossmatching were incompatible with 1 or 2 of the 3 potential donors. All 149 dogs were compatible with ≥ 1 potential donor. Mean ± SD change in Hct after transfusion was significantly higher in dogs that had crossmatching performed (12.5 ± 8.6%) than in dogs that did not undergo crossmatching (9.0 ± 4.3%).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated immunologic incompatibility can exist between first-time transfusion recipients and potential blood donor dogs. The clinical importance of these findings could not be evaluated, but considering the potential for immediate or delayed hemolytic transfusion reactions or shortened RBC life span, the authors suggest veterinarians consider crossmatching all dogs prior to transfusion when possible.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Garraway's present address is Department of Internal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Address correspondence to Dr. Odunayo (aodunayo@utk.edu).