两种方法在临床交叉配血工作中的比较  

Methodological comparison of two methods for clinical cross-matching

作　　者：徐光明[1] 周炳能[1] 

机构地区：[1]江西省肿瘤医院检验科,南昌330029

出　　处：《检验医学与临床》2009年第3期163-164,共2页Laboratory Medicine and Clinic

摘　　要：目的探讨微柱凝胶法与凝聚胺法在临床交叉配血工作中的方法学比较。方法对本院需要输血的344例患者用微柱凝胶法和凝聚胺法进行交叉配血,并对结果进行分析。结果在所做的交叉配血中,发现有2例患者体内已经产生了针对供血者的不完全抗体,凝聚胺法只能检测出其中的1例,而微柱凝胶法则能同时检测出这2例患者,两者方法检测出不完全抗体的阳性率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论两种方法相比较检测不完全抗体的特异性基本一致,但是微柱凝胶法的敏感性要高于凝聚胺法。因此用微柱凝胶法做交叉配血,不完全抗体误检的概率更小,结果更准确。Objective To investigate the methodological comparison between the microcolumn gel test and the polybrene test for clinical cross-matching. Methods Microcolumn gel test and polybrene test for cross-matching were performed in 344 patients who received blood transfusion in our hospital and the results were analyzed. Results In all cases,two patients produced incomplete antibodies aiming directly at donators. Two cases were microcolumn gel test positive,but only one case of them was polybrene test positive. There was no statistical difference in positive rate of incomplete antibodies between the two methods （P〉0.05）. Conclusion The specificity of examination of incomplete antibodies is alike in microeolumn gel test and polybrene test, but the sensitivity of microcolumn gel test is higher than that of polybrene test. Microcolumn gel test has lower rate of error detection for incomplete antibodies and more accurate than polybrene test.

关 键 词：微柱凝胶法 凝聚胺法 交叉配血 方法学比较 

分 类 号：R446.1[医药卫生—诊断学]