Transfusion · 1994
The risk of alloimmunization to c (Rh4) in R1R1 patients who present with anti-E.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shirey R S, Edwards R E, Ness P M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Because the Rh antigens E (Rh3) and c (Rh4) are relatively immunogenic, it has been suggested that R1R1 (E-, c-) patients who present with anti-E alone receive prophylactic c- (Rh: -4) red cell transfusions.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: To determine the utility of this approach, the transfusion records of 100 consecutive R1R1 patients with anti-E identified over a 6-year period were reviewed.
RESULTS: Thirty-two (32%) had anti-c concurrent with anti-E. Twenty-seven of the 68 patients who presented with anti-E alone received random (i.e., not typed for c [Rh4]) red cell transfusions. Five (18.5%) of the 27 subsequently developed anti-c 13 to 193 days (mean, 50) after transfusion of 2 to 14 (mean, 8) red cell units. None of the five had clinical evidence of hemolysis that could be attributed to a delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction. Twenty-two (81.5%) of the 27 failed to develop anti-c even after transfusion of 1 to 41 (mean, 9; median, 7) red cell units.
CONCLUSION: The overall rate of immunization to c (Rh4) antigen in R1R1 patients with anti-E was 37 percent. Production of anti-c following transfusion to R1R1 patients with anti-E occurred in 18.5 percent of the cases in this series, which could have been avoided by the prophylactic use of R1R1 (E-, c-) blood for transfusion. The prophylactic use of c- (Rh: -4) blood in this patient population may be justified by the high immunization rate and the potential risk of delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: To determine the utility of this approach, the transfusion records of 100 consecutive R1R1 patients with anti-E identified over a 6-year period were reviewed.
RESULTS: Thirty-two (32%) had anti-c concurrent with anti-E. Twenty-seven of the 68 patients who presented with anti-E alone received random (i.e., not typed for c [Rh4]) red cell transfusions. Five (18.5%) of the 27 subsequently developed anti-c 13 to 193 days (mean, 50) after transfusion of 2 to 14 (mean, 8) red cell units. None of the five had clinical evidence of hemolysis that could be attributed to a delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction. Twenty-two (81.5%) of the 27 failed to develop anti-c even after transfusion of 1 to 41 (mean, 9; median, 7) red cell units.
CONCLUSION: The overall rate of immunization to c (Rh4) antigen in R1R1 patients with anti-E was 37 percent. Production of anti-c following transfusion to R1R1 patients with anti-E occurred in 18.5 percent of the cases in this series, which could have been avoided by the prophylactic use of R1R1 (E-, c-) blood for transfusion. The prophylactic use of c- (Rh: -4) blood in this patient population may be justified by the high immunization rate and the potential risk of delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction.