Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
RHD-negative red cells may be avoided for patients with ambiguous serologic typing for the RHD antigen.
Juhl, David; Luckner, Kathrin; Brockmann, Christian; Musiolik, Ingrid; Bunge-Philipowski, Tina; Görg, Siegfried; Ziemann, Malte.
Afiliación
  • Juhl D; Institute of Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck/Kiel, Germany.
  • Luckner K; Institute of Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck/Kiel, Germany.
  • Brockmann C; Institute of Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck/Kiel, Germany.
  • Musiolik I; Institute of Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck/Kiel, Germany.
  • Bunge-Philipowski T; Institute of Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck/Kiel, Germany.
  • Görg S; Institute of Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck/Kiel, Germany.
  • Ziemann M; Institute of Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck/Kiel, Germany.
Transfusion ; 64(2): 281-288, 2024 02.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38142051
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND

OBJECTIVES:

Serologic typing with monoclonal anti-D is mandatory for RHD antigen determination before transfusion, but due to aberrant (weak or partial) variants of RHD, results may be ambiguous and molecular RHD-typing is required. Before that, RHD-negative (RHD -) red blood cells concentrates (RBCs) shall be transfused to avoid anti-D formation, which probably leads to wastage of RHD - RBCs. STUDY DESIGN AND

METHODS:

All patients with ambiguous results in serologic RHD-typing and molecular RHD-typing were assessed retrospectively. The proportions of patients at risk for anti-D formation and the proportion of RHD - RBCs transfused unnecessarily were evaluated for the following transfusion strategies (1) RHD-positive (RHD + )RBCs for all patients, (2) RHD + RBCs for patients with at least 2+ reaction with anti-D, (3) RHD + RBCs for patients with C and/or E in their RHCE-phenotype, (4) RHD + RBCs for patients with C and/or E and at least 2+ reaction, and (5) RHD - RBCs for all patients.

RESULTS:

A total of 112 patients were included. Most had weak D type 1-3 and a minority had other, rare RHD variants. The risk of anti-D formation was 4.5%, 2.9%, 1.8%, 1.0%, and 0% for strategies 1-5, respectively. The proportion of RHD - RBCs transfused unnecessarily was 0%, 49.5%, 0.9%, 50.5%, and 95.5%.

CONCLUSION:

Transfusing patients with a C and/or E in their RHCE-phenotype with RHD + RBCs resulted in a very low risk of immunization while avoiding wastage of RHD - RBCs. Therefore, this strategy should be used for some patients with ambiguous results in serologic RHD-typing and pending results of molecular RHD-typing.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Sistema del Grupo Sanguíneo Rh-Hr / Antígenos de Grupos Sanguíneos Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Transfusion Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Alemania

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Sistema del Grupo Sanguíneo Rh-Hr / Antígenos de Grupos Sanguíneos Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Transfusion Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Alemania