BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2009
Risk factors for RhD immunisation despite antenatal and postnatal anti-D prophylaxis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Koelewijn J M, de Haas M, Vrijkotte T G M, van der Schoot C E, Bonsel G J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors for Rhesus D (RhD) immunisation in pregnancy, despite adequate antenatal and postnatal anti-D prophylaxis in the previous pregnancy. To generate evidence for improved primary prevention by extra administration of anti-D Ig in the presence of a risk factor.
DESIGN: Case-control study.
SETTING: Nation-wide evaluation of the Dutch antenatal anti-D-prophylaxis programme.
CASES: 42 RhD-immunised parae-1, recognised by first-trimester routine red cell antibody screening in their current pregnancy, who received antenatal and postnatal anti-D Ig prophylaxis (gifts of 1000 iu) in their first pregnancy.
CONTROLS: 339 parae-1 without red cell antibodies.
METHODS: Data were collected via obstetric care workers and/or personal interviews with women.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Significant risk factors for RhD immunisation in multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: Independent risk factors were non-spontaneous delivery (assisted vaginal delivery or caesarean section) (OR 2.23; 95% CI:1.04-4.74), postmaturity (>or=42 weeks of completed gestation: OR 3.07; 95% CI:1.02-9.02), pregnancy-related red blood cell transfusion (OR 3.51; 95% CI:0.97-12.7 and age (OR 0.89/year; 95% CI:0.80-0.98). In 43% of cases, none of the categorical risk factors was present.
CONCLUSIONS: In at least half of the failures of anti-D Ig prophylaxis, a condition related to increased fetomaternal haemorrhage (FMH) and/or insufficient anti-D Ig levels was observed. Hence, RhD immunisation may be further reduced by strict compliance to guidelines concerning determination of FMH and accordingly adjusted anti-D Ig prophylaxis, or by routine administration of extra anti-D Ig after a non-spontaneous delivery and/or a complicated or prolonged third stage of labour.
DESIGN: Case-control study.
SETTING: Nation-wide evaluation of the Dutch antenatal anti-D-prophylaxis programme.
CASES: 42 RhD-immunised parae-1, recognised by first-trimester routine red cell antibody screening in their current pregnancy, who received antenatal and postnatal anti-D Ig prophylaxis (gifts of 1000 iu) in their first pregnancy.
CONTROLS: 339 parae-1 without red cell antibodies.
METHODS: Data were collected via obstetric care workers and/or personal interviews with women.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Significant risk factors for RhD immunisation in multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: Independent risk factors were non-spontaneous delivery (assisted vaginal delivery or caesarean section) (OR 2.23; 95% CI:1.04-4.74), postmaturity (>or=42 weeks of completed gestation: OR 3.07; 95% CI:1.02-9.02), pregnancy-related red blood cell transfusion (OR 3.51; 95% CI:0.97-12.7 and age (OR 0.89/year; 95% CI:0.80-0.98). In 43% of cases, none of the categorical risk factors was present.
CONCLUSIONS: In at least half of the failures of anti-D Ig prophylaxis, a condition related to increased fetomaternal haemorrhage (FMH) and/or insufficient anti-D Ig levels was observed. Hence, RhD immunisation may be further reduced by strict compliance to guidelines concerning determination of FMH and accordingly adjusted anti-D Ig prophylaxis, or by routine administration of extra anti-D Ig after a non-spontaneous delivery and/or a complicated or prolonged third stage of labour.