4.2 Article

The determination of the fetal D status from maternal plasma for decision making on Rh prophylaxis is feasible

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 48, 期 11, 页码 2292-2301

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01843.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Commission for the Special Non-Invasive Advances in Fetal and Neonatal Evaluation ( SAFE) Network of Excellence [LSHB-CT-2004-503243]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Noninvasive fetal RHD genotyping might become a valuable tool in decision making on antenatal Rh prophylaxis, which is currently in routine practice for all D- pregnancies in several countries. This study provides a large-scale validation study of this technology to address questions concerning feasibility and applicability of its introduction into clinical routine. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) targeting RHD Exons 5 and 7 was applied for the detection of fetal-specific RHD sequences in maternal plasma. A total of 1113 women in 6 to 32 weeks (median, Week 25) of pregnancy were recruited. All of them were serologically typed as D- according to current German guidelines. DNA was extracted via a spin-column method and a novel automated approach using magnetic tips. Real-time PCR results were compared with postnatal serology and discrepancies further elucidated by DNA sequencing from a newborn's buccal swab. Sensitivities of fetal RHD genotyping were 99.7 percent (spin columns) and 99.8 percent (magnetic tips), thus comparable with serology (99.5%). The detection of weak D variants was more reliable by real-time PCR. Specificities of fetal RHD genotyping were 99.2 percent (spin columns) and 98.1 percent (magnetic tips), which is lower than serology (> 99.7%). Automation achieved significantly higher yields of cell-free fetal DNA. This prospective clinical trial revealed that routine determination of the fetal D status from maternal plasma is feasible. Noninvasive fetal RHD genotyping can be considered as sensitive as the traditional postnatal serologic assay.

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