Evaluation of the Automated Blood Bank Systems Galileo NEO and QWALYS-3 for ABO-RhD Typing and Antibody Screening

Jang, Mi Ae; Oh, Jong Won; Lee, Seung Tae; Seo, Ji Young; Kim, Dae Won

Abstract

BACKGROUND
An automation system for ABO-RhD typing and antibody screening has been developed and its use is increasing. We compared the results of ABO-RhD typing and antibody screening tests using the manual (ABO-RhD typing) or semiautomated (antibody screening) method and with the automation instruments Galileo NEO (Immucor Gamma, Norcoss, USA) and QWALYS-3 (DIAGAST, Loos Cedex, France).
METHODS
A total of 332 blood samples were tested for ABO-RhD typing in comparison with routine manual tests, and 236 samples for antibody screening in comparison with DS-Screening II (Bio-Rad Laboratories, 1785 Cressier FR, Switzerland). We evaluated the performance of Galileo NEO and QWALYS-3 in terms of concordance, carryover, and sensitivity test for ABO-RhD typing and antibody screening.
RESULTS
The concordance rates of ABO-RhD typing results between the manual methods and the two instruments were 99.4% for Galileo NEO and 99.1% for QWALYS-3, respectively. On antibody screening tests, a concordance rate of 97.9% was observed between the semiautomated method and Galileo NEO or QWALYS-3, because of discordance in five specimens. The carryover was not observed for ABO-RhD typing and antibody screening. The overall sensitivity of the two automation instruments appears to be parallel with that of DS-Screening II except for anti-E.
CONCLUSION
The Galileo NEO and QWALYS-3 system showed good performance, it can be used with confidence for routine pre-transfusion testing in the blood bank.