Literature DB >> 33667181

Modern Rhesus (Rh) typing in transfusion and pregnancy.

Willy Albert Flegel1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33667181      PMCID: PMC7954563          DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.201212

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


× No keyword cloud information.

Patients who are Rhesus (Rh) negative lack the D antigen on their red blood cells

Patients who are Rh negative, if transfused with Rh-positive blood, can become immunized for anti-D immunoglobulin (Ig).1 These patients are at risk of severe transfusion reactions, and if they become pregnant, the fetus is at risk of severe anemia. A small number (0.5%) of patients have a serologic “weak D” phenotype, and when these patients need a transfusion, providers are left wondering if Rh-negative red blood cells and RhIg prophylaxis are needed.

More than 160 distinct molecular weak D types are known

Weak D types are clustered by ethnic origin. Types 1 to 3 are typical in White people, type 4 variants cluster in Black people and type 15 is found most often in East Asian people. Other weak D types are encountered sporadically.

Molecular typing of weak D improves patient safety without increasing costs

Although the technology for molecular typing has been established for 2 decades, only the serologic test is routinely applied. Molecular typing is reliable, and applying this precision medicine approach can avoid unnecessary therapies, but it must be specially requested in many hospitals.2

Patients with the 5 most prevalent weak D types can be safely treated as Rh positive

Patients carrying the molecular weak D types 1, 2, 3, 4.0 or 4.1 should be treated as Rh positive.3 Pregnant women with these weak D phenotypes do not benefit from RhIg prophylaxis.4 They should not be exposed to RhIg, which is pooled from thousands of immunized donors. This approach conserves the limited supply of Rh-negative blood.5

Patients carrying less common molecular weak D types should be treated as Rh negative

Less common types include the weak D type 4.2, though it is more prevalent among people of African descent.6 An exhaustive list of weak D types that should be treated as Rh negative is maintained by the International Society of Blood Transfusion.7 If providers are unsure about whether types should be treated as Rh positive or negative, an immunohematology reference laboratory should be contacted.
  7 in total

Review 1.  On the complexity of D antigen typing: a handy decision tree in the age of molecular blood group diagnostics.

Authors:  Willy A Flegel; Gregory A Denomme; Mark H Yazer
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Can       Date:  2007-09

2.  No 133-Prévention de l'allo-immunisation fœto-maternelle Rh.

Authors:  Karen Fung Kee Fung; Erica Eason
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Can       Date:  2018-01

3.  International Society of Blood Transfusion Working Party on Red Cell Immunogenetics and Blood Group Terminology: Report of the Dubai, Copenhagen and Toronto meetings.

Authors:  Jill R Storry; Frederik Banch Clausen; Lilian Castilho; Qing Chen; Geoff Daniels; Greg Denomme; Willy A Flegel; Christoph Gassner; Masja de Haas; Catherine Hyland; Ji Yanli; Margaret Keller; Christine Lomas-Francis; Nuria Nogues; Martin L Olsson; Thierry Peyrard; Ellen van der Schoot; Yoshihiko Tani; Nicole Thornton; Franz Wagner; Christoph Weinstock; Silvano Wendel; Connie Westhoff; Vered Yahalom
Journal:  Vox Sang       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 2.144

4.  Group O RBCs: where is universal donor blood being used.

Authors:  R L Barty; M Pai; Y Liu; D M Arnold; R J Cook; M P Zeller; N M Heddle
Journal:  Vox Sang       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 2.144

5.  Financial implications of RHD genotyping of pregnant women with a serologic weak D phenotype.

Authors:  Seema Kacker; Ralph Vassallo; Margaret A Keller; Connie M Westhoff; Kevin D Frick; S Gerald Sandler; Aaron A R Tobian
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2015-03-21       Impact factor: 3.157

6.  Anti-D immunization rates may exceed 50% in many clinically relevant settings, despite varying widely among patient cohorts.

Authors:  Willy Albert Flegel; Franz Friedrich Wagner; Diarmaid Padraig Ó Donghaile
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 3.157

7.  It's time to phase out "serologic weak D phenotype" and resolve D types with RHD genotyping including weak D type 4.

Authors:  Willy A Flegel; Gregory A Denomme; John T Queenan; Susan T Johnson; Margaret A Keller; Connie M Westhoff; Louis M Katz; Meghan Delaney; Ralph R Vassallo; Clayton D Simon; S Gerald Sandler
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 3.337

  7 in total
  1 in total

1.  What constitutes the most cautious approach for a pregnant person with weak D type 4.0?

Authors:  Willy Albert Flegel; Melanie Bodnar; Gwen Clarke; Judith Hannon; Lani Lieberman
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 8.262

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.