4.2 Article

Report of the first nationally implemented clinical routine screening for fetal RHD in D- pregnant women to ascertain the requirement for antenatal RhD prophylaxis

Journal

TRANSFUSION
Volume 52, Issue 4, Pages 752-758

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03362.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: A combination of antenatal and postnatal RhD prophylaxis is more effective in reducing D immunization in pregnancy than postnatal RhD prophylaxis alone. Based on the result from antenatal screening for the fetal RHD gene, antenatal RhD prophylaxis in Denmark is given only to those D- women who carry a D+ fetus. We present an evaluation of the first national clinical application of antenatal RHD screening. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In each of the five Danish health care regions, blood samples were drawn from D-women in Gestational Week 25. DNA was extracted from the maternal plasma and analyzed for the presence of the RHD gene by real-time polymerase chain reaction targeting two RHD exons. Prediction of the fetal RhD type was compared with serologic typing of the newborn in 2312 pregnancies, which represented the first 6 months of routine analysis. RESULTS: For the detection of fetal RHD, the sensitivity was 99.9%. The accuracy was 96.5%. The recommendation for unnecessary antenatal RhD prophylaxis for women carrying a D-fetus was correctly avoided in 862 cases (37.3%), while 39 women (1.7%) were recommended for antenatal RhD prophylaxis unnecessarily. Two RHD+ fetuses (0.087%) were not detected, and antenatal RhIG was not given. CONCLUSION: These data represent the first demonstration of the reliability of routine antenatal fetal RHD screening in D-, pregnant women to ascertain the requirement for antenatal RhD prophylaxis. Our findings should encourage the implementation of such screening programs worldwide, to reduce the unnecessary use of RhIG.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available