Dataset Information

Benefits of VISION Max automated cross-matching in comparison with manual cross-matching: A multidimensional analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

VISION Max (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Raritan, NJ, USA) is a newly introduced automated blood bank system. Cross-matching (XM) is an important test confirming safety by simulating reaction between packed Red Blood Cells (RBCs) and patient blood in vitro before transfusion. We assessed the benefits of VISION Max automated XM (A-XM) in comparison with those of manual XM (M-XM) by using multidimensional analysis (cost-effectiveness and quality improvement).

Materials and methods

In a total of 327 tests (130 patients), results from A-XM and M-XM were compared. We assessed the concordance rate, risk priority number (RPN), turnaround time, hands-on time, and the costs of both methods. We further simulated their annual effects based on 37,937 XM tests in 2018.

Results

The concordance rate between A-XM and M-XM was 97.9% (320/327, kappa = 0.83), and the seven discordant results were incompatible for transfusion in A-XM, while compatible for transfusion in M-XM. None of the results was incompatible for transfusion in A-XM, while compatible for transfusion in M-XM, meaning A-XM detect agglutination more sensitively and consequently provides a more safe result than M-XM. A-XM was estimated to have a 6.3-fold lower risk (229 vs. 1,435 RPN), shorter turnaround time (19.1 vs. 23.3 min, P < 0.0001), shorter hands-on time (1.1 vs. 5.3 min, P < 0.0001), and lower costs per single test than M-XM (1.44 vs. 2.70 USD). A-XM permitted annual savings of 46 million RPN, 15.1 months of daytime workers' labor, and 47,042 USD compared with M-XM.

Conclusion

This is the first attempt to implement A-XM using VISION Max. VISION Max A-XM appears to be a safe, practical, and reliable alternative for pre-transfusion workflow with the potential to improve quality and cost-effectiveness in the blood bank.

SUBMITTER: Chung HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6927601 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Benefits of VISION Max automated cross-matching in comparison with manual cross-matching: A multidimensional analysis.

Chung Hee-Jung HJ Hur Mina M Choi Sang Gyeu SG Lee Hyun-Kyung HK Lee Seungho S Kim Hanah H Moon Hee-Won HW Yun Yeo-Min YM

PloS one 20191223 12

<h4>Background</h4>VISION Max (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Raritan, NJ, USA) is a newly introduced automated blood bank system. Cross-matching (XM) is an important test confirming safety by simulating reaction between packed Red Blood Cells (RBCs) and patient blood in vitro before transfusion. We assessed the benefits of VISION Max automated XM (A-XM) in comparison with those of manual XM (M-XM) by using multidimensional analysis (cost-effectiveness and quality improvement).<h4>Materials and met ...[more]

PMID: 31869405

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCross-mapping establishes equivalence between terms from different terminology systems, which is useful for interoperability, updated terminological versions, and reuse of terms. Due to the number of terms to be mapped, this work can be extensive, tedious, and thorough, and it is susceptible to errors; this can be minimized by automated processes, which use computational tools.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the results of manual and automated term mapping processes.MethodsIn this descriptive, quantitative study, we used the results of two mapping processes as an empirical basis: manual, which used 2638 terms of nurses' records from a university hospital in southern Brazil and the International Classification for Nursing Practice (ICNP); and automated, which used the same university hospital terms and the primitive terms of the ICNP through MappICNP, an algorithm based on rules of natural language processing. The two processes were compared via equality and exclusivity assessments of new terms of the automated process and of candidate terms.ResultsThe automated process mapped 569/2638 (21.56%) of the source bank's terms as identical, and the manual process mapped 650/2638 (24.63%) as identical. Regarding new terms, the automated process mapped 1031/2638 (39.08%) of the source bank's terms as new, while the manual process mapped 1251 (47.42%). In particular, manual mapping identified 101/2638 (3.82%) terms as identical and 429 (16.26%) as new, whereas the automated process identified 20 (0.75%) terms as identical and 209 (7.92%) as new. Of the 209 terms mapped as new by the automated process, it was possible to establish an equivalence with ICNP terms in 48 (23.0%) cases. An analysis of the candidate terms offered by the automated process to the 429 new terms mapped exclusively by the manual process resulted in 100 (23.3%) candidates that had a semantic relationship with the source term.ConclusionsThe automated and manual processes map identical and new terms in similar ways and can be considered complementary. Direct identification of identical terms and the offering of candidate terms through the automated process facilitate and enhance the results of the mapping; confirmation of the precision of the automated mapping requires further analysis by researchers.

Dataset Information

Benefits of VISION Max automated cross-matching in comparison with manual cross-matching: A multidimensional analysis.

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Benefits of VISION Max automated cross-matching in comparison with manual cross-matching: A multidimensional analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets