4.2 Article

Rhesus D alloimmunization in pregnancy from 1996 to 2015 in Iceland: a nation-wide population study prior to routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 60, 期 1, 页码 175-183

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.15635

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Rhesus D (RhD) incompatibility is still the most important cause of hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) worldwide. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, causes, and consequences of anti-D alloimmunizations in pregnancy in Iceland, prior to implementation of targeted routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis (RAADP) in 2018. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS This was a nation-wide cohort study of 130 pregnancies affected by RhD alloimmunization in Iceland in the period from 1996 through 2015. Data were collected from transfusion medicine databases, medical records, and the Icelandic Medical Birth Register. RESULTS Of 130 RhD alloimmunizations, 80 cases (61.5%) represented new RhD immunization in the current pregnancy. Sensitization was discovered in the third trimester in 41 (51.3%) and occurred in the first pregnancy in 14 cases (17.5%). The most likely causative immunization event was the index pregnancy for 45 (56.25%), a previous pregnancy/birth for 26 (32.5%), abortion for 3 (3.75%), and unknown for 6 women (7.5%). Higher anti-D titers were associated with shorter gestational length, cesarean sections, positive direct antiglobulin test (DAT), and severe HDFN. Intrauterine transfusion (IUT) was performed in five pregnancies (3.8%), and 35 of 132 (26.5%) live-born neonates received treatment for HDFN; 32 received phototherapy (24.2%), 13 exchange transfusion (9.8%), and seven simple blood transfusion (5.3%). CONCLUSION In about half of cases, RhD alloimmunization was caused by the index pregnancy and discovered in the third trimester. Thus, the newly implemented RAADP protocol should be effective in reducing the incidence of RhD immunization in Iceland in the future.

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