From the Department of Pathology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois (Ramsey).
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Park).
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2023 Jan 1;147(1):71-78. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2021-0250-CP.
CONTEXT.—: Modern RHD genotyping can be used to determine when patients with serologic weak D phenotypes have RHD gene variants at risk for anti-D alloimmunization. However, serologic testing, RhD interpretations, and laboratory management of these patients are quite variable.
OBJECTIVE.—: To obtain interlaboratory comparisons of serologic testing, RhD interpretations, Rh immune globulin (RhIG) management, fetomaternal hemorrhage testing, and RHD genotyping for weak D-reactive specimens.
DESIGN.—: We devised an educational exercise in which 81 transfusion services supporting obstetrics performed tube-method RhD typing on 2 unknown red blood cell challenge specimens identified as (1) maternal and (2) newborn. Both specimens were from the same weak D-reactive donor. The exercise revealed how participants responded to these different clinical situations.
RESULTS.—: Of reporting laboratories, 14% (11 of 80) obtained discrepant immediate-spin reactions on the 2 specimens. Nine different reporting terms were used to interpret weak D-reactive maternal RhD types to obstetricians. In laboratories obtaining negative maternal immediate-spin reactions, 28% (16 of 57) performed unwarranted antiglobulin testing, sometimes leading to recommendations against giving RhIG. To screen for excess fetomaternal hemorrhage after a weak D-reactive newborn, 47% (34 of 73) of reporting laboratories would have employed a contraindicated fetal rosette test, risking false-negative results and inadequate RhIG coverage. Sixty percent (44 of 73) of laboratories would obtain RHD genotyping in some or all cases.
CONCLUSIONS.—: For obstetric and neonatal patients with serologic weak D phenotypes, we found several critical problems in transfusion service laboratory practices. We provide recommendations for appropriate testing, consistent immunohematologic terminology, and RHD genotype-guided management of Rh immune globulin therapy and RBC transfusions.
现代 RHD 基因分型可用于确定具有血清学弱 D 表型的患者是否存在 RHD 基因变异,从而导致抗-D 同种免疫。然而,这些患者的血清学检测、RhD 解释和实验室管理存在很大差异。
比较不同实验室在血清学检测、RhD 解释、Rh 免疫球蛋白(RhIG)管理、胎儿母体出血检测和弱 D 反应性标本的 RHD 基因分型方面的差异。
我们设计了一项教育性的实验,由 81 家支持产科的输血服务机构对 2 个未知的红细胞挑战标本进行试管法 RhD 定型,这 2 个标本分别被鉴定为(1)产妇和(2)新生儿。这两个标本均来自同一个弱 D 反应性供体。该实验揭示了参与者如何应对这些不同的临床情况。
在报告实验室中,有 14%(11/80)对这 2 个标本的即时旋转反应不一致。9 种不同的报告术语被用于解释弱 D 反应性产妇 RhD 类型,以供产科医生参考。在获得阴性产妇即时旋转反应的实验室中,有 28%(16/57)进行了不必要的抗球蛋白检测,有时会导致不建议使用 RhIG。为了筛查弱 D 反应性新生儿后的胎儿母体出血过多,47%(34/73)的报告实验室会使用一种禁忌的胎儿玫瑰花结试验,这可能导致假阴性结果和 RhIG 覆盖不足。60%(44/73)的实验室会在某些或所有情况下进行 RHD 基因分型。
对于具有血清学弱 D 表型的产科和新生儿患者,我们发现输血服务实验室实践中存在几个关键问题。我们提供了适当检测、一致的免疫血液学术语以及基于 RHD 基因型指导的 RhIG 治疗和 RBC 输血管理的建议。