4.2 Article

Incidence of alloantibody formation after ABO-D or extended matched red blood cell transfusions: a randomized trial (MATCH study)

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 56, 期 2, 页码 311-320

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.13347

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sanquin Blood Supply [PPOC06-017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUNDMost incidentally transfused patients receive only ABO-D-compatible transfusions and antibodies are formed in up to 8%. The effect of extended (c, C, E, K, Fy(a), Jk(a), and S antigens) matched (EM) and ABO-D-matched red blood cell (RBC) transfusions on the incidence of new clinically relevant RBC antibody formation after a first elective transfusion event in surgical patients was studied. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSA multicenter randomized trial was performed in nontransfused patients who were scheduled to experience a single elective transfusion event of maximal 4 RBC units. The primary outcome was the incidence of newly formed warm reacting clinically relevant RBC alloantibodies measured in three follow-up (FU) samples taken at 7 to 10 days, 4 to 6 weeks, and 4 to 6 months posttransfusion. RESULTSA total of 853 patients were randomized, and of these, 333 patients were transfused with a total of 1035 RBC units. At least one FU sample was available from 97% of transfused patients. In intention-to-treat analysis, new antibodies were detected in 10 of 155 ABO-D and seven of 178 EM patients, respectively. Per-protocol analysis including 190 patients showed a nonsignificant absolute risk difference (ARD) of 5.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4% to 12%) in alloimmunization between study arms. In a post hoc analysis of 138 patients who received RBCs but no platelet (PLT) transfusions the ARD increased to significance, 8.0% (95% CI, 0.4-16.0). CONCLUSIONExtended matching for selected antigens reduced the alloimmunization risk by 64% in surgical patients. Extended matching seems successful only if the patient did not receive accompanying nonmatched PLT transfusions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据