TY - JOUR

T1 - Is current serologic RhD typing of blood donors sufficient for avoiding immunization of recipients? (CME)

AU - Krog, Grethe Risum

AU - Clausen, Frederik Banch

AU - Berkowicz, Adela

AU - Jørgensen, Lone

AU - Rieneck, Klaus

AU - Nielsen, Leif Kofoed

AU - Dziegiel, Morten Hanefeld

N1 - © 2011 American Association of Blood Banks.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - BACKGROUND: Avoiding immunization with clinically important antibodies is a primary objective in transfusion medicine. Therefore, it is central to identify the extent of D antigens that escape routine RhD typing of blood donors and to improve methodology if necessary. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We screened 5058 D- donors for the presence of the RHD gene, targeting Exons 5, 7, and 10 with real-time polymerase chain reaction. Samples that were positive in the screen test were investigated further by adsorption-elution, antibody consumption, flow cytometry, and sequencing of all RHD exons with intron-specific primers. Lookback was performed on all recipients of RBCs from RHD+ donors. RESULTS: We found 13 RHD+ samples (0.26%). No variants or chimeras were found. Characterization of DNA revealed a novel DEL type (IVS2-2 A>G). In the lookback of the 136 transfusions with subsequent antibody follow-up, of which 13 were from DEL donors, one recipient developed anti-D. However, in this case, a competing and more likely cause of immunization was the concurrent transfusion of D+ platelets. Eleven recipients were immunized with 13 antibodies different from anti-D, of which five were anti-K. CONCLUSION: In our laboratory, serologic RhD typing was safe. We detected all D variants and only missed DEL types. In assessing the immunization risk we included a DEL donor, found previous to this study, that did immunize a recipient with anti-D. We conclude that inadvertent immunization with D antigens in our setting was rare and in the order of 1.4 in 100,000 D- transfusions.

AB - BACKGROUND: Avoiding immunization with clinically important antibodies is a primary objective in transfusion medicine. Therefore, it is central to identify the extent of D antigens that escape routine RhD typing of blood donors and to improve methodology if necessary. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We screened 5058 D- donors for the presence of the RHD gene, targeting Exons 5, 7, and 10 with real-time polymerase chain reaction. Samples that were positive in the screen test were investigated further by adsorption-elution, antibody consumption, flow cytometry, and sequencing of all RHD exons with intron-specific primers. Lookback was performed on all recipients of RBCs from RHD+ donors. RESULTS: We found 13 RHD+ samples (0.26%). No variants or chimeras were found. Characterization of DNA revealed a novel DEL type (IVS2-2 A>G). In the lookback of the 136 transfusions with subsequent antibody follow-up, of which 13 were from DEL donors, one recipient developed anti-D. However, in this case, a competing and more likely cause of immunization was the concurrent transfusion of D+ platelets. Eleven recipients were immunized with 13 antibodies different from anti-D, of which five were anti-K. CONCLUSION: In our laboratory, serologic RhD typing was safe. We detected all D variants and only missed DEL types. In assessing the immunization risk we included a DEL donor, found previous to this study, that did immunize a recipient with anti-D. We conclude that inadvertent immunization with D antigens in our setting was rare and in the order of 1.4 in 100,000 D- transfusions.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03156.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03156.x

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 21569040

VL - 51

SP - 2278

EP - 2285

JO - Transfusion

JF - Transfusion

SN - 0041-1132

IS - 11

ER -