摘要
目的研究凝聚胺法与微柱凝胶法交叉配血阳性结果。方法方便选择申请输血患者2 000例,选择时间:2016年3月—2017年3月,所有供血者均为无偿献血者,均按照《输血技术学》、产品说明书中所规定的操作流程进行实验操作,急诊进行凝聚胺法配血,其他配血类型则采用微柱凝胶法。比较记录凝聚胺法与微柱凝胶法交叉配血阳性结果。结果凝聚胺法操作耗时(12.09±2.11)min低于微柱凝胶法(32.22±2.31)min,但微柱凝胶法的阳性标本检出率(90.00%)均高于凝聚胺法(50.00%),差异有统计学意义(χ~2=38.10、t=64.34、P=0.00)。结论微柱凝胶法具有较高的敏感性,但操作耗时较长,并不适合应用于急诊配血过程中;而凝聚胺法相对更为快速,但存在一定的漏检率,适合应用于急诊配血过程中。
Objective To research the crossmatching positive results of polybrene and microtubes gel test. Methods 2 000 cases of blood transfusion patients were convenient selected from March 2016 to March 2017, and all blood donors were the voluntary blood donation, and the patients were for experimental operation according to the Transfusion technology and operation procedures of product instruction, and the crossmatching positive results of polybrene and microtubes gel test were compared and recorded. Results The operation time of polybrene was lower than that of microtubes gel test[（12.09±2.11）min vs （32.22±2.31）min], but the test rate of positive specimens of microtubes gel test was higher than that of polybrene and the difference was obvious（90.00% vs 50.00%）,（χ^2=38.10, t=64.34, P=0.00）. Conclusion The sensitivity of microtubes gel test is higher, but the operation time is longer, and it is not suitable for the emergency blood matching, and the polybrene is relatively rapid, with a certain missed diagnosis rate, and it is suitable for the emergency blood matching course.
作者
丰强
FENG Qiang(Department of Blood Transfusion,Xiamen Fifth Hospital,Xiamen,Fujian Province,361100 China)
出处
《中外医疗》
2018年第32期179-180,189,共3页
China & Foreign Medical Treatment
关键词
凝聚胺法
微柱凝胶法
交叉配血
阳性结果
Polybrene
Mierotubes gel test
Crossmatehing
Positive results
