摘要
目的对凝聚胺法(MPT)、微柱凝胶法(MGT)两种交叉配血方法进行方法学比较。方法以1456例输血患者为研究对象,分别用MPT、MGT两种方法进行交叉配血,对交叉配血试验过程中的阳性患者行不完全抗体检测,评价两种交叉配血方法的优缺点。结果 MPT、MGT两种交叉配血方法总阳性率分别为5.5‰、9.6‰,次侧阳性率分别为3.4‰、8.9‰,次侧阳性率经卡方检验分析比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),主侧阳性、总阳性率及假阳性率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。MGT方法学灵敏度、特异度、正确诊断指数、符合率分别为100%、99.9%、0.99、99.9%均好于MPT。结论微柱凝胶法适于输血工作的标准化检测,有很好的灵敏度、特异度对不规则抗体的检测有优势,凝聚胺法能为急诊患者的抢救赢得时间。
Objective To compare polybrene test （MPT） with microcolumn gel test （MGT） in blood crossmatching. Metheds MPT and MGT were used in 1456 cases of blood transfusion for crossmatching of blood. Incomplete antibody detection was performed in patients with positive result in blood crossmatching test. The advantages and disadvantages of MPT and MGY were evaluated. Results The total positive rate of MPT and MGT were 5.5% and 9.6 %o, respectively. The positive rate of minor side was 3.4%e for MPT and 8.9 %o for MGT （ P 〈 0.05 ）. No significant difference was found in the positive rate of major side, total positive rate and false positive rate between MPT and MGT （ P 〉 0.05 ）. The sensitivity （ 100% ） , specificity （99.9%） , correct diagnosis index （0.99） , and agreement rate （99.9%） of MGT were superior to those of MPT. Conclusion MGT is suitable for the standardization of blood cressmatching. It is highly sensitive and specific and has the advantage for ir- regular antibodies detection. MPT can save time for emergency patients.
出处
《临床和实验医学杂志》
2013年第8期623-624,共2页
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine
关键词
交叉配血
凝聚胺法
微柱凝胶法
凝集
Blood crossmatching
Polybrene test
Microcolumn gel test
Agglutination
