Abstract
We compared the results of routine blood tests for 102 blood donors’ samples and 100 patients’ samples collected in spray-dried K2EDTA, spray-dried K3EDTA, and liquid K3EDTA blood collection tubes to evaluate the impact of changes in formulation of the anticoagulant (K2EDTA vs. K3EDTA), its application (liquid vs. spray- dried), and tube material (glass vs. plastic). Methods for ABO/D testing, antibody screening, and antibody identification included direct hemagglutination/microplate (Olympus® PK 7200) and gel column methods (Ortho ID-Micro Typing System™/Gel Test™). Additional studies on blood donors’ samples included time delayed antigen testing and antibody identification and half-draw/half- evacuated collections. Also, we compared the results of routine ABO/D testing and antibody screening for 50 patients’ samples collected in spray-dried K2EDTA and spray-dried K3EDTA and for an additional 50 patients’ samples collected in spray-dried K2EDTA tubes from two different manufacturers. All patients’ samples were tested in parallel by solid phase/microplate method (Immucor® ABS 2000) and the standard manual tube method. All test results for routine blood bank tests on donors’ and patients’ samples were concordant, demonstrating the equivalence of spray-dried K2EDTA, spray-dried K3EDTA, and liquid K3EDTA blood collection tubes for routine donor center or transfusion service testing.